Linux-Advocacy Digest #529, Volume #27 Fri, 7 Jul 00 23:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Chris Shepherd)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John Dyson)
Re: Linux Hardware Compatibility Lists - Re: Linux lags behind Windows (R.E.Ballard
( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Steve Mading)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John Dyson)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Steve Mading)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Steve Mading)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Steve Mading)
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451734 (Marty)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chris Shepherd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 22:05:36 -0400
> >From the number of complaints you've made on cola it would seem that
> >you have access to a positively enormous variety of hardware. Surely
> >it wouldn't be difficult to check the various compatibility lists
> >and find a combination that you know is going to work before trying
> >out Linux. I find it slightly suspicious that in the warehouseful of
> >stuff you have tried you haven't been able to get one working setup.
> My complaints revolve around my simple premise "Linux lags behind Windows"
> or "Linux is playing catchup".
>
> I have actually got a working Linux box, a Pentium 166MHz with 32 MBytes of
> RAM and 7 GBytes of disk. I use it as a Samba file server, I don't run any
> kind of desktop on it (too slow).
>
> On this system two devices gave me trouble:
>
> SB16: refused to auto install, had to hand massage the PnP files.
>
> AHA152x: refused to auto install, had to add aha152x=0x340,11,7,1 to LILO.
>
> Windows 98 SE has drivers for these devices and worked first time with
> them. Further evidence that Linux lags behind Windows.
I believe that is because most companies want to support windows more
than linux, simply because of user base. 3Com is so nice to have their
own linux drivers. :)
I will say one thing though, because of the way PnP is in Windows, It's
earned the nickname "Plug and Pray" for a reason.
--
Chris Shepherd
Vice President, GDPS Computers
Known in the SCA as William Silverlake
"Better hide your Megadeath albums." - Mulder
------------------------------
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 21:07:53 -0500
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Hyman Rosen wrote:
> :>
> :> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
> :> > 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.
> :>
> :> Of course this is a lie. The point of the GPL is to encourage
> :> the development of free software.
> :>
> : That statement isn't consistant with the result, since the GPL
> : isn't free.
>
> Blah, blah blah - repeat same assertion - blah blah -repeat
> same assertion - repeat until bored. This isn't productive.
>
Sorry, just answering another repeated and disproven assertion.
This thread isn't linear, and such disproof is in here somewhere :-).
John
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Hardware Compatibility Lists - Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 01:58:14 GMT
In article <8k4i7a$ivo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8k3659$n67$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Congratulations, you've managed to spend about $2000 on the
> > latest, greatest, and most intensely protected equipment, carefully
> > chosen because it was NOT on any of the compatibility lists.
>
> I bought the system a long time before
> I considered running Linux on it.
> I did not buy the system deliberately
> because it wasn't on Linux HCL.
This is actually rather amazing. It really takes some effort
to find that many components that DON'T work with Linux. They
may not support everything, especially the stuff that's only been
out since Windows 2000 was released, but at the same time,
the Linux developer community is usually pretty good at getting
the necessary support available as quickly as possible.
> > Now realize you could have saved about $1200, gotten better
> > performance, and had a chance of offering anything like a credible
> > opinion about Linux instead of just being another wintroll who
> > bought Microsoft's "best choices" configuration - designed to make
> > use of companies that would probably engage in acts of violence
> > against anyone who threatened to ruin their relationship with
> > Microsoft (since Microsoft has nearly bankrupted each of them
> > at least once).
>
> SMC as far as I know has no agreements with Microsoft. They are too
> small being located in one shop in Slough, Middlesex, England.
When you purchased the machine, you didn't even think about Linux
compatibility. SMC may have assembled the cards, but they probably
assembled them using the hardware Microsoft was promoting. I have
noticed that in the U.S., Microsoft often goes after small companies
for copyright infringement suits. A quick out of court settlement
includes nondisclosure agreement, adoption of Microsoft's reccomended
hardware, and as much as 20% equity stake in the company.
Microsoft's legal department goes after around 50 to 100 of these
little "custom shops" each year. I have noticed that many of the
targeted companies were also offering Linux installation and support.
Of course, they were also selling either OEM software or no hardware.
It's interesting that Germany decided not to enforce this anymore.
http://www.voila.co.uk/News/afp/media/000707142130.97jwrsuf.html
> > You had to shop really carefully for this set of hardware.
You didn't, SMC did. If you really aren't a wintroll (Microsoft
has about 10 paid trolls who keep this group "interesting"). You
simply didn't let your vendor know you wanted to put Linux on the
machine.
If you want to put a Camper on the back of your vehicle, you don't
buy a compact economy sedan, you buy a truck, with a bed, where
the camper can be placed. Most economy sedans can't even TOW a camper
trailer (unless it's a tent on wheels).
> See above.
>
> > Linux does support the USB ZIP 100 drive. Without the driver
> > commands from IOMEGA (covered by Microsoft NDAs), if Linux attempted
> > to write to your 250 meg hard drive, it could fry the formatting.
> > The rule for USB is if you're not absolutely sure of the device,
> > don't mess with it. With Microsoft arm-twisting the vendors into
> > nondisclosure agreements that lock them out of the market, you
> > just have to wait.
>
> I have a SCSI ZIP 100 MByte drive that works just fine under Linux.
> You know I bought the ZIP 250 precisely
> because it was portable. I also
> bought it long before I considered running Linux.
My guess is that future Linux release will be supporting Zip drives.
USB mass storage (Hard disks, zip drives, CD-ROM burners, tape drives)
use a very complicated protocol similar to (but not entirely compatible
with) SCSI Common Command set. The SCSI command set is published,
and is available under ANSI specifications. The FireWire drivers
use SCSI commands embedded within the FireWire frame. Supposedly
it's pretty easy to create a bridge between fire-wire and SCSI devices.
With Linux, the USB drivers support the USB frames, but you have to
have a protocol definition of the USB protocol as well. If all you
had to do was put the SCSI commands into the USB frames, the whole
job would be trivial. Why didn't USB do that? Maybe because Microsoft
wanted to create a bunch of proprietary extensions.
Proprietary extensions are an interesting thing. You can add new
functions, like the way Microsoft added ActiveX, VBScript, and COM
objects to Internet Explorer (Mosaic). Of course, this also may
create "back doors" - VBScript and ActiveX let users load pages
that allow the publisher to read anything on the user's hard drive.
Embedded COM objects within Office Document formats allow users
to load executable code that can pretty much bypass all security
systems.
If you add little routines to make the C: drive sharable to everybody,
without authentication, you can use anybody's machine to study the
target machine.
> If Linux did not lag behind Windows,
> it would have supported this by now.
If the specifications were available, and the protocol were
published, as an ANSII or IEEE standard, like SCSI, PCI, or FireWire,
we could probably see Linux drivers available for download within
a few weeks of a product's release. For some reason, IOMEGA seems
to think that selling software for it's hardware is more profitable
than selling the software.
If IOMEGA wants to write the driver and charge me $20 bucks, I might
even go out and get me a 250 meg Zip drive. But right now, I've
got my choice of about 25 CD-ROM burners that run under Linux. I'd
choose one of them if I wasn't sure that IOMEGA was going to provide
good Linux support.
Actually, I'd rather have the option of downloading an IOMEGA
supported Linux driver. I've got a DITTO drive that I'd love
to use with Linux. As it is, I'll probably pay quite a bit extra
for an HP Colorado drive because I know that drive IS supported.
> > Again, you don't want Linux treating it like an older HP scanner and
> > stepping the motor so far that it shatters your scanner lens or
> > illumination light do you? When HP decides to do whatever it has
> > to do to break it's NDA with Microsoft and publish a Linux module
> > (even a binary-only version) we can load it. Remember, with Linux,
> > the USB protocol is handled, but that's like knowing IP without
> > knowing TCP, HTTP, or HTML and knowing that you will be sued into
> > 2100 if you even think of reverse-engineering the protocol without
> > Microsoft's consent. The Judge says this is illegal, but Microsoft
> > doesn't care. The Judge put his demand that Microsoft cancel these
> > NDAs on hold, probably to see if Microsoft would do ANYTHING
> > voluntarily, but Microsoft doesn't care. The Supreme Court and
> > Appellate court will be informed of these behaviors, but Microsoft
> > doesn't care. Appearantly Bill Gates thinks he owns at least 7 out
> > of 10 of the DC Apellate court judges, and 5 out of 7 of the Supreme
> > Court judges. Anyone else would be trying to look like a model
> > citizen right now.
>
> Assuming there is an NDA covering this sort of thing. We'll never know
> unless it comes out in court.
Actually, if the Court nullifies illegal NDA agreements, this would
at least free the OEMs to create their own drivers for Linux.
Microsoft wants total control of all driver development, the Judge's
order demands total disclosure of all device protocols. The court
will probably protect the right of the Independent Hardware Vendor
to protect it's device protocols, put will void any clause that
prevents hardware vendors from supporting Linux, UNIX, or any other
non-Microsoft party operating system. Furthermore, Microsoft won't
be able to punish a vendor for porting to Linux (excluding their
software from the production release).
> > Betcha a nickle there's a Microsoft NDA on that card, as well as
> > the drivers?
>
> You'd lose then. You're out of date already.
Good - your problem is solved. Where do I send your nickle?
> There are Linux drivers in
> XFree86 4.0.1 and Windows 2000 beta drivers.
You found that out yesterday? When did you post the complaint that
your card wasn't working? I posted my reply yesterday. I did
look to see if the card was on the supported card list of any of
the major distributions. The Voodoo 3 is supported.
> > Does the Voodoo 5 use exactly the same chipset commands as the
> > Voodoo 3 card?
>
> Dunno. I saw it was 'software compatible' which probably means no.
Definitly not the same thing. Vendors claim "soundblaster
compatibility" using software drivers that make Crystal chips look
like soundblasters. As far as Linux is concerned, the CHIP determines
the driver.
[things reqired to get a device driver for Linux]
> > 2-Detailed specifications of protocols between the device and the
> > host machine - the USB port or the PCI slot in the case of your
> > Voodoo 5 card. Again, probably covered by illegal NDAs,
> > would be nullified
> > under behavioral remedy, but IHVs not forced to disclose the
> > protocol unless they think they want to (to reach the fastest
> > growing market for IHV after-market products).
>
> See above for the Voodoo 5 card.
>
> > 3-Appropriate enhancements to existing GPL drivers. This usually
> > means adding the device to the devices recognised as functional
> > under this driver, possibly some conditional initialization, and
> > possibly some conditional code during operation. For example, if
> > the Voodoo 5 card has 16 meg RAM and the Voodoo 3 card has 8,
then
> > you might add conditional code to support the extra RAM. Again,
> > Microsoft NDAs would be violated. The Judge says "tear up that
> > contract, it's no good". But some IHVs and OEMs might not want
> > to extend drivers that make their newest card work "just like the
> > old one did".
>
> See above. So much for your assumption about an NDA.
Not necessarily. Sometimes a vendor agrees not to release drivers
for a certain period AFTER the general release of a Microsoft product.
A number of Windows 98 vintage Video cards were released under 98,
kept out of Linux for 3-6 months, and were then released.
Most aftermarket cards do want access to the Linux market. There
has been a huge market for aftermarket "real" modems. Many modem
makers are even putting "Linux Compatible" on their PCI modems
to show that the card supports a UART interface to the Modem.
> > An AMD K6-500 with I128 video, internal zip drive, a compatible
> > parallel ECP printer and scanner, and a perhaps even one of the
> > supported USB printers and/or SANE supported USB scanners, you
> > could have built the entire system for under $1000 (not including
> > monitor), and gotten a good system and a legitimate evaluation.
>
> I question the good system statement. Sounds a bit lame to me.
For Windows 2000 it WOULD be lame. For Linux, it's got enough dynamite
to blow away britain :-). I have a thinkpad with a 12 gig hard drive,
160 meg of RAM, and a P-II/350 processor. I ran the Win2K
compatibility test and was told that my configuration software, my
drivers, and 1/2 gig of Applications would have to be removed. Either
that or I'd have to resize my partitions. Maybe it noticed that I
had a 1 gig Linux partition (on which I put more functionality than
I get with Windows NT and Apps - which ate a 6 gig partition).
Appearantly Windows 2000 couldn't use the extra 400 free meg on my
D: drive.
> > The next bugger eatin' wintroll that whines about how Windblows-only
> > hardware don' work on 'is 90 minute "I really tried to install Linux
> > but I couldn't' excursion should get one of this posting sent to him
> > verbatim, and a copy of both the whine and the posting should be
> > sent to the Department of Justice, antitrust division.
>
> Ah standard Linux advocate fare.
> If you can't beat them, hurl insults.
Sorry I snapped at you. It's nothing personal. I've just noticed
that there are about 90 postings that have essentially the same theme.
The user made no attempt to check for compatibility before attempting
to install Linux on hardware that was known to be unsupported. Usually
they don't even give enough detail about the hardware to indicate
that it's either not on the supported list, or it's explicitly on the
unsupported list.
You just seem to have incredibly rotten luck. There are a few PCs
that are notoriously bad Linux machines. The People's PC machines
are very bad. Some of the Compaq machines are horrible (Compaq does
support Linux on their high end machines and will be coming out with
a machine with Linux preinstalled.
> > If Microsoft still thinks it's above the law, can bully IHVs into
> > excluding Linux, and then hire paid wintrolls to carefully shop
> > for the perfect combination of excluded software so that they can
> > honestly say "this configuration doesn't work therefore Linux is
> > a terrible operating system that deserves no one's consideration",
> > should be investigated more carefully - don't you think?
>
> See above.
I take it you're not a paid Wintroll. There are a few of them
who seem to be quite active. You can usually tell they're on the
payroll because they post 20-30 articles a day from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
whereas the "volunteers" usually do their postings from 6 p.m. to
3:00 A.M. (Sometimes I'll sneak one in at lunchtime, or while
waiting for a phone call).
> > > Windows support all of these products
> > > as there are drivers available for them.
> >
> > And you knew before you purchased any of them (or should have
> > known) that NONE of these products were supported.
>
> I stated earlier that Linux support was
> not on my mind when I bought the
> machine about a year ago.
What suprises me is that so many of your peripherals were
unsupported. It's like you managed to get the "I hate Linux"
configuration by accident. You did upgrade the video card
to the Voodoo 5 (was the old card supported?).
> > 1900 devices ARE supported, including most of the components used
> > by nearly every major manufacturer over the last 10 years, but
> > you can't seem to figure out how to configure a working system.
> > Not only that, but EVERY component you suggested was KNOWN IN
> > ADVANCE to be unsupported.
>
> SB16 unsupported?
A REAL soundblaster 16 card, or a proprietary chip which came with
a special set of drivers so that it would be soundblaster compatible
for Windows programs.
> AHA152x unsupported?
Adaptec 1540 chips are no problem, and 1520 chips should be O.K. too.
You do need to make sure that your terminators are configured
correctly (Windows may be setting them on set-up, on some cards, Linux
needs to be told to terminate).
Normally, when you install, you have to tell it you want to use SCSI
devices for the Installation. Linux goes through all of the known
drivers and tries to get a driver that will "hit". Some of the
Adaptec PCI adapters came in umpteen variations. The source code
for the modules on one of them (I think a 29xx card) actually has
so many permutations there's a configuration table for matching the
driver to the serial number).
> I did not _know in advance_ these components would be unsupported and
> deliberately do this to portray Linux in a bad light.
Again, I apologize for the accusation. I still strongly suggest
that before people go screaming at the advocacy group that Linux
bombed during the installation, that they check the compatibility
chart first.
If there is a specific device that you don't know how to configure,
the comp.os.linux.setup group is usually very patient and tolerant.
I had just had a full day of Windows NT hell (mysterious crashes,
Netscape recursing itself to death, and a server that refused to
accept SMS connections). And when you announced that you were
fully qualified to declare Linux unfit for human consumption with
the peripheral set you described, and less than 10 hours work,
I got impatient. It was about 11PM when I replied.
> > Go play with your dragon - or whatever you do with Bill these days,
> > or - make a LEGITIMATE ATTEMPT to CONFIGURE A LINUX system. Either
> > way, stop whining about how you can't get Linux to work on NDA-ware.
>
> Go away yourself and learn to be more civil,
> people might take you seriously.
I deserved that. I think if you looked at most of my 1100 COLA posts
in the last year, you'd find that I'm usually pretty civil. I'm sorry
I went off on you.
> NDA-ware! HAH! If the Voodoo 5 stuff was
> NDA please EXPLAIN WHY THERE
> ARE NOW DRIVERS FOR XFree86 4.0.1???
I do know that USB is strictly protected by NDAs. I know that
several manufacturers I have contacted have apologized for nonsupport,
referring to NDAs. Some of those covered by NDAs actually gave me
URLs that referred to specific Linux configuration instructions.
I requested Linux information for my CD-ROM burner and found out
that it was not supported by the Manufacturer, but it was supported
and the manufacturer even sent me the how-tos for configuring the
drive (most of which I could do from Linuxconf).
> SB16 and AHA152x could be said to be older hardware.
> Yet, they would not auto install on my Linux system.
> I had to manually make changes to
> various scripts to get them to work.
Yes. The AHA1520 reqires a SCSI configuration to set termination,
configuration, and boot information. You can either change a script
or use liloconf (or YAST). You may also have to change the LILO
parameters (KLILO provides a GUI interface to this).
> Windows 98 SE and Windows 2000 has
> no problems with these devices?
> Why does Linux? Could it be... "Linux lags behind Windows"?
Linux probes for devices Windows wouldn't even touch, Windows
probes for and autoconfigures a number of modems, SCSI cards,
ISA cards, parallel port cards, and tries to figure out cards
that aren't even covered by Microsoft's PnP. Furthermore, it
probes for ISA, VLB, EISA, MCA, and PCI devices that were produced
before PnP was announced.
There are many PnP devices that are still covered by strict NDA
agreements. Red Hat got some information from Adaptec, and
others were generous enough to provide core functions. Unfortunately,
there are many things that are assumed. For example a PnP device
will identify the type of device it is, but Windows knows from that
Identity which configurations are valid. Linux doesn't always have
access to that information and must therefore let the user set these
valid options. A PPA SCSI device will use IRQ 7, but a SCSI detection
test for IRQ 7 might lead to a false positive if both PPA and AHA
devices are used.
Again, sorry I blew off at you. You just happened to be the 20th
such posting I'd read THAT DAY.
> --
> ---
> Pete
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 40 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 7/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 8 Jul 2000 02:08:11 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On 7 Jul 2000, Steve Mading wrote:
:>:>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.
:> I challenge you to find some other way to do it that doesn't allow
:> for the opposite problem - removing GPL from GPL'ed code. How do
:> you say something like "The following parts of this source code
:> file are GPLed: Lines 1,5,10-20,45-76,125,400-732, the characters
:> from column 5 to column 17 of line 912, everything after the third
:> comma on line 1025, and everything after line 2501. Any source
:> not mentioned above is not under GPL, but is instead under this
:> other license I made..."
: Done. Look at the MPL. (www.mozilla.org)
from http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html :
3.2. Availability of Source Code.
Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must
be made available in Source Code form under the terms of this
License either on the same media as an Executable version or via
an accepted Electronic Distribution Mechanism to anyone to whom
you made an Executable version available; and if made available
via Electronic Distribution Mechanism, must remain available for
at least twelve (12) months after the date it initially became
available, or at least six (6) months after a subsequent version
of that particular Modification has been made available to such
recipients. You are responsible for ensuring that the Source Code
version remains available even if the Electronic Distribution
Mechanism is maintained by a third party.
This is exactly what I thought you guys were complaining about
with the GPL - if you make any modifications you must release
them under the same license.
------------------------------
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 21:18:28 -0500
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> 3.2. Availability of Source Code.
> Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must
> be made available in Source Code form under the terms of this
> License either on the same media as an Executable version or via
> an accepted Electronic Distribution Mechanism to anyone to whom
> you made an Executable version available; and if made available
> via Electronic Distribution Mechanism, must remain available for
> at least twelve (12) months after the date it initially became
> available, or at least six (6) months after a subsequent version
> of that particular Modification has been made available to such
> recipients. You are responsible for ensuring that the Source Code
> version remains available even if the Electronic Distribution
> Mechanism is maintained by a third party.
>
> This is exactly what I thought you guys were complaining about
> with the GPL - if you make any modifications you must release
> them under the same license.
>
As a general license, so that you make sure that future work
on it is encumbered so that source code must be redistributed
upon distribution of binarie, then the GPL is okay!!!
The GPL isn't EVIL in it's own right, and almost noone in these
threads are arguing against the GPL. What is being argued against
is the notion that the GPL denotes a 'free' license. Just because
certain benefits are given to certain individuals, that does
not justify calling the GPL free. In fact, those 'benefits'
cost certain others something also.
Redistribution of wealth isn't freedom, and in fact is often
considered tyranny. Note that the GPL has certain functions
that are outside the realm of it being 'free'. Those functions,
outside of the realm of reasonably being free, really negate
the notion that the GPL is free.
Making the license non-free doesn't make the license BAD. Equating
FREE with GOOD and non-FREE with BAD causes bias and prejudice.
Perhaps a marketing analogy (since the term 'free' is being used
for marketing purposes), might be calling a foodstuff 'natural'
or for you UKers 'not GM.'
John
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 8 Jul 2000 02:15:39 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: http://www.mozilla.org -- it's the Mozilla Public Licence.
See other post above.
[snip]
: No, not really. Look around at some of the other licences that are
: available, and I think that you'll see that you've been FUDed.
The tactic of assuming that the only reason someone disagrees with
you is because they don't have all the information is egotism.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 8 Jul 2000 02:11:59 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Hyman Rosen wrote:
:>
:> John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:> > Frankly those who claim that the GPL is free AND want to encumber
:> > redistribution of work that others do ARE repugnent.
:>
:> That work that others have done is voluntarily encumbered, since
:> they chose to use the GPLed code. Why is it repugnant to decide
:> that for yourself?
:>
: Please parse the sentence carefully. The term 'free' and GPL are
: incompatible.
blah blah blah repeat assertion blah blah blah repeat assertion blah
blah blah repeat assertion blah blah blah repeat assertion blah blah
blah repeat assertion blah blah blah repeat assertion blah blah blah...
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 8 Jul 2000 02:10:23 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In gnu.misc.discuss, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: 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.
Okay, so I picked a bad example. This doesn't invalidate the argument,
only the example.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451734
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 02:20:05 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Why would they like to do something unnecessary, Malloy?
>
> Why should anyone write software that isn't needed, Malloy?
Oh come now, Tholen. You know the answer to this better than anybody: For
*entertainment purposes*!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
