Linux-Advocacy Digest #513, Volume #27 Fri, 7 Jul 00 05:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John Dyson)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Sam Holden)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John Dyson)
offering escape, Re: Three things not to say to spam victims... (Cameron L. Spitzer)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (SomeOne Else)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Steve Mading)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Steve Mading)
Re: Linux is just plain awful (Mike Marion)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (SomeOne Else)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Mike Marion)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John Dyson)
Re: ## HOT ## Microsoft software for Linux (Gert Vandelaer)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Russ Allbery)
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? (Ed Cogburn)
Re: ## HOT ## Microsoft software for Linux (Rasputin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 02:00:57 -0500
Sam Holden wrote:
>
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 00:28:01 -0500, John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >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.
>
> No it doesn't it. It grants lots of freedom to a particular group, and
> grants less freedom to another.
>
And as such, you make the software non-free.
>
> Both groups can do more with the code
> then they could if it was not licensed at all.
>
Not true, the GPL has redistribution encumberances. Without those
encumberances, the users and other developers and do more with the
software.
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam Holden)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 7 Jul 2000 07:08:17 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 7 Jul 2000 00:34:36 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Sam Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>So the GPL fulfills is goals well enough then.
>>
>>It provides free software from the perspective of the end-user.
>
>It also prevents a lot of potential useful combinations
>of GPL and less restricted software from being distributed
>as free software.
Yes, we live in a real world where trade-offs are necessary. That is the
price for not allowing the code to be leveraged in non-free software.
>
>>It doesn't matter that some developer somewhere can't use the code in their
>>non-GPL compatible work, since the goal wasn't to give them code, but to
>>give the end-user freedom.
>
>Or prevent the end-user from getting something that doesn't
>exactly match the FSF philosophy.
No. The end user has been granted freedoms, nothing has been taken away.
There are some restrictions which result in less freedom for some, but
more freedom overall.
>
>>The secondary goal was to stop the software from being used in a non-free
>>product. It succeeded reasonably well there too, an unfortunate casualty of
>>friendly fire are those that want to use GPL code in non-GPL compatable
>>free software. But that is necessary to prevent the obvious loop hole.
>
>Yes it succeeds in stopping the software in being used in many
>ways. But why is that a goal at all?
Because the end-users freedom is considered more important than the
end-user having access to some piece of software.
>
>>And finally a pool of free software is built up, since developers have
>>to release free software if they want to leverage GPL'd code.
>
>The GPL is not necessary for a pool of free software to be
>built up. There are plenty of free non-GPL'd projects.
I didn't say it was necessary. It helps though. There are real examples
of code being released under the GPL which would have been closed source,
except for a violation of the GPL. Parts of gcc are the obvious example.
>
>>Software developers can read licenses, the GPL does them no harm (they can
>>just pretend that the GPL'd software doesn't exist if they don't want to
>>produce GPL compatible software), and does them some good if they are willing
>>to pay the GPL compatible price.
>
>But if they want to re-use components from different sources and
>give away the result, the GPL'd components are unusable.
Such is the price of keeping all derivatives free. Yes there are some
friendly casualties, that is the cost of using as blunt an instrument as
copyright law.
>
>>Idiot developers who didn't read the license, will have to implement the GPL'd
>>functionality themselves or remove it from their product - which leaves them
>>exactly where they would have been without the GPL'd software.
>
>Correct, along with the ones who do read the license and also want
>to use less restricted existing code. I don't see why anyone
>considers this a good thing.
It is not a good thing. But it is the cost of a better thing : that all
derivatives will be free.
>
>>I don't see non-free software as an evil force whose developers are
>>minions of satan. I thnk non-free software is a waste of resources but
>>that's practical not moral...
>>
>>To the end user though, the GPL is free software license.
>
>Not if they consider all the possible combinations of existing
>components that the GPL prevents them from having.
Again the price of the all derivatives being free.
You don't have to agree with the cost benefit analysis and conclusions.
However, some freedoms are sacrificed to achieve what is considered a
greater freedom - that is the way freedom works... anything else is
anarchy.
>>I explicitly give people the freedom not to use Perl, just as God gives
>>people the freedom to go to the devil if they so choose.
>> --Larry Wall
>
>Interesting quote. Larry Wall must have seen the duplicity
>of the GPL from the start, and outdid it with his own tricky
>language that allows it to co-exist with GPL'd code but
>impose none of the restrictions.
That has nothing to do with the quote... but yes Larry Wall wanted perl to
be usable in non-free software, and thus the GPL was not appropriate,
however, by also licensing it under the GPL he can have th best of both
worlds (of course Perl can't leverage existing GPL code, without getting
an extra license).
--
Sam
Fifty years of programming language research, and we end up with C++ ???
--Richard A. O'Keefe
------------------------------
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 02:15:28 -0500
Sam Holden wrote:
>
> On 7 Jul 2000 00:34:36 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >Sam Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>So the GPL fulfills is goals well enough then.
> >>
> >>It provides free software from the perspective of the end-user.
> >
> >It also prevents a lot of potential useful combinations
> >of GPL and less restricted software from being distributed
> >as free software.
>
> Yes, we live in a real world where trade-offs are necessary. That is the
> price for not allowing the code to be leveraged in non-free software.
>
The problem here is that the GPL keeps the code from being used in free
software also. The GPL, not being free, is the issue that is operative.
Morally justify the GPL itself all you want, but continues to beg the
issue
about the GPL just not being free.
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cameron L. Spitzer)
Crossposted-To: news.admin.net-abuse.email
Subject: offering escape, Re: Three things not to say to spam victims...
Date: 7 Jul 2000 06:19:40 GMT
In article <3965651c$0$94739$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Anderson wrote:
>While I don't disagree entirely, you disallowed several points.
>
>On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Ron Ritzman wrote:
>> 2. Get a real OS such as $FAVORITE_UN?X
>
>Again, this is an educational exercise. Not everyone is going to flock to
>*nix. But certain clients are evil. Outside of a corporate environment
>where it is 'thus' or forgetaboutit, users will listen to an effective
>argument.
It is very difficult to keep that an educational exercise, but if you
can do that the results are extraordinary.
I brought a bag of diskettes to the ASGP convention (we nominated
Ralph Nader for president of the US) last month, Debian GNU/Linux 2.1r5
Rescue Disk.
My prattle was, I do *not* want you to install Linux.
I know that's a huge commitment, and the learning curve is unpleasant.
I just want you to keep this disk, for when you are tearing your hair
out with frustration over what Microsoft is doing to you, and you can
boot it just to see your PC not under that corporation's control.
By the way, this is the Copyleft, you can't detach it from this disk,
and it's a working demonstration of Green economics.
Just save this disk whereever you're keeping that last hit of blotter
that you're never going to drop.
Incidentally, this is the system your Web site is hosted on.
It was designed to be shared. It doesn't crash. There's a free
office suite that can read your Word and Excell files.
Posed that way, it's not "Nyah, nyah, my OS is better than yours"
any more, it's "welcome to my community, enter when you're ready,
the door is open for you." It's pure empowerment, not a put down.
People got it. I ran out of Rescue Disks in no time. I was careful
to choose people who would actually boot the thing and read about
Software In The Public Interest, Inc. and look at the endless menus
of supported hardware and networking features. But for every one of
those, there were three or four listening in who never would have
believed there was a way to escape The Monopoly, had they not seen it.
There is nothing so magical as giving away tools. No wonder Larry
Wall always looks like he is having a blast.
Cameron
--
"Ah, but fortunately / I have the key / to escape reality!
And you may see me tonight / with an illegal smile..." -- John Prine
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SomeOne Else)
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 07:28:17 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 20:35:34 GMT, "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a ecrit dans le message :
>8jumsu$mae$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> (...)
>> > Windows has no equal...At least not yet....
>> If you were happy with Windows, why were you considering a switch?
>> In order to be able to troll perhaps?
>
>Why, everybody was telling him linux was better. That MS was an horrible
>company, working only to suck his money and control his life.
Of course Macroshit doesn't want to suck your money from you. That's
why in .NET they are pushing a way of licensing software that allows
them to collect money from us over and over and over and over and over
and over and over...
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 7 Jul 2000 07:20:12 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: You cannot steal something that has 1000's of copies already on the
: net.
Ahem - Kerberos. Add an incompatability and try to hide it
from everyone - put it in the most popular OS out there, one
that is typically run by people who don't spend any time on these
sorts of issues - voila - your modified kerberos becomes the standard,
and those who actually did most of the work of Kerberos can't make as
effective use of it anymore. Luckily for us there was a clause in
the Kerberos standard that said the standard must be kept open, that
forced MS to publish what they did. It reduced the freedom of MS, but
created more freedom for others by so doing.
: If you are arguing that there might be some kind of bootstrapping
: issue associated with free software -- that might be true. Justifying
: the incorrect description about the GPL being free is still wrong.
Anarchy is not a sustainable state. Left to its own devices, an
anarchy quickly becomes a dictatorship under whichever bully has
the most power. Because of this, the irony is that freedom is
actually maximized with a small amount of law, not with no laws
at all - the GPL is like that.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 7 Jul 2000 07:22:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: The LGPL does not have this problem. Nor the one
: I mentioned. But it doesn't serve the political
: agenda of the FSF - the point of the GPL really *is*
: to control and usurp the works of others.
Repeating an assertion a dozen times isn't any more convincing
than simply mentioning it once.
: Follow the 'philosophy' link from www.fsf.org to:
: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
Please save me a little time - has it been changed in the last
few months? I'll only bother to read it if it has.
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is just plain awful
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 07:33:27 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Learn to read, Dork.....
Oh I read just fine. It says, "...Linux... it is numero uno on the
return list.. It blue screens even in the setup program." Windows is
mentioned after that. If the implication was that Windows starts
bluescreening either after Linux is installed, or that it's a Linux
install that starts in Windows.. then it just goes to prove that windows
sucks.
> It says "especially those with Windows 98 SE installed".
> You'd think with all thoses How-To's you dorks have to wade through
> you would have picked up the simple art of reading by now.
'smatter, mad because everyone (note I'm not the only one that
interpreted it like that) misinterpreted what you put in your post,
which was posted using yet another troll ID?
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
SYSTEM ALERT: /dev/null is full. Please delete any unnecessary files.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SomeOne Else)
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 07:35:13 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 07 Jul 2000 00:32:50 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien) wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 20:35:34 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
>Yannick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>| Of course, he realized quickly something about linux... a great potential, but
>| not much to talk of for the end user right now. Which compared to Windows
>| (a system with an equally great unused potential, but with numerous features
>| for the end user), is a rather poor replacement...
>
>I happen to be an end-user who happens to think Linux is great and has
>many more features for the end-user then Windows. Perhaps, you can
>point out the end-user features available on Windows not available on
>Linux?
The ability of Macrocrap to "rent" you the software periodically.
Forcing you to pay over and over and over.
Still, I can live without that.
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 07:48:43 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I read the tests and the dude is correct, the Linux techies made quite an
> impression on all who attended. Mostly bad.
I wasn't disputing that.
> If that is the case, then that is a highly unfair test. I don't support rigged
> testing of any od and in fact my opinion is that the correct benchmark is one
> that runs the users applications on each platform.
Yep, that was the case (I'm not sure if it was this exact one he's
talking about, but there was one where they did just what I described).
The really weak part of it is that they tried to somehow justify it with
that "admins won't apply patches if they're not in one big patch and
have to be downloaded/applied seperately..." ploy. If your admins agree
with that.. you'd better fire them, because they're not doing their job.
> Let's face it a benchmark can be designed to make any os or application look
> good....
No argument here. That's why most people who actually work with
computers (and know what they're doing) are smart enough to look deeper,
test systems with real-world apps, etc.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"Administering a Linux server is no more difficult than properly running
Windows NT."
-- Infoworld, November 24, 1997
------------------------------
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 03:09:15 -0500
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : You cannot steal something that has 1000's of copies already on the
> : net.
>
> Ahem - Kerberos.
>
Kerberos from Microsoft was reimplemented. You cannot protect
a specification. Even if it wasn't reimplemented, the holes
in the specification allow for non-compatible implmentation.
Microsoft has the wherewithall and money to implement almost
anything anyway. It is the very small business that is hurt
most by restrictive and encumbered licenses like the GPL. That
is okay though, as long as you don't call the GPL free.
<Rest of your complaint elided, due to the Kerberos situation being
invalid regarding license violation or moral misuse.>
Refer to XFree, and the X consortiums attempt to make a commercial
version for a more accurate example. Of course, the source-available
XFree lived on, because that has been deemed an important feature.
GPL is certainly not needed.
I felt bad about the X consortium guys, but saw the failure before
it happened... Source available is NOW an important feature, and
GPL isn't needed to police it.
Next
John
------------------------------
From: Gert Vandelaer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [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: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 08:10:01 GMT
> This is not the only Microsoft program for Linux.
> For a long time exists Microsoft Netshow (like realplayer) for Linux - check
> the microsoft site.
I WILL MOST CERTAINLY DO NO SUCH THING !!!!
:-)
G.
------------------------------
From: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 07 Jul 2000 01:07:02 -0700
In gnu.misc.discuss, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ahem - Kerberos. Add an incompatability and try to hide it from
> everyone - put it in the most popular OS out there, one that is
> typically run by people who don't spend any time on these sorts of
> issues - voila - your modified kerberos becomes the standard, and those
> who actually did most of the work of Kerberos can't make as effective
> use of it anymore. Luckily for us there was a clause in the Kerberos
> standard that said the standard must be kept open, that forced MS to
> publish what they did. It reduced the freedom of MS, but created more
> freedom for others by so doing.
Um, as someone who runs a large Kerberos realm as part of his job and who
is familiar with the issues involved in the MS implementation, I'm afraid
that your understanding of the situation is rather far from accurate.
First of all, MS isn't hiding the incompatibility; they are touting it as
a feature and are very public about the fact that it's there. Second,
there is no such clause in the Kerberos standard; the Kerberos standard
specifically allows them to put private data in the authorization field.
Third, MS has *not* published what they did. Fourth, a standard would
have no legal ability to force them to do so anyway.
Kerberos is not a good argument for the GPL. The same thing could have
happened if the MIT implementation were GPL'd. Kerberos is actually a
very good argument for the BSD license, as it would be much less widely
distributed now were it under a more restrictive license. The BSD license
met the intentions of the original authors (namely to raise the bar on
Internet security in general) considerably better than the GPL would have,
and given their goals I would have recommended they use the license they
did.
You may also be interested to know that at least some of the developers of
Kerberos, despite the problems around the edges with interoperability, are
still very glad that MS incorporated Kerberos into their operating system.
It represents a committment to a *real* security infrastructure that most
commercial Unix vendors have still failed to make, and MS has put a lot of
work into making their protocols more secure in Windows 2000 by taking
advantage of the authentication provided by Kerberos. This is without
question a Good Thing for the state of computer security as a whole, even
if I still have my doubts about the ability of MS programmers to by and
large write secure code.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 04:57:55 -0400
From: Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Jacques Guy wrote:
>
> Steve Mading wrote:
>
> > [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?
>
> "Hear". Simple Simon the fish(*) wrote "hear," not "read".
> However loud
> you may shout, I am pretty sure he won't hear you, or me.
> So, really,
> he is not exactly lying.
>
> (*) the fish: 777
We're on a text-only Usenet newsgroup for heaven's sake. "hear" is
always taken to mean both "hear" and "read". Its a defacto rule that
simplifies the composing of messages.
--
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." - Voltaire
Ed C.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rasputin)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.best,alt.linux.sucks,be.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: ## HOT ## Microsoft software for Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 09:04:24 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <Lincoln Peters> wrote:
>
>Anyway, what does this program do? Are you sure that it's made by
>Microsoft rather than a clone of a Microsoft product? Is it as
>(un)reliable as Microsoft software usually is?
Are you for real?
It runs 'date'
copies a file, and runs
'date'
It's about 30Mb too small for a Microsoft application of that functionality..
--
Rasputin.
Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
