Linux-Advocacy Digest #535, Volume #27 Sat, 8 Jul 00 11:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John Dyson)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John Dyson)
Re: Linux Hardware Compatibility Lists - Re: Linux lags behind Windows
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John Dyson)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John Dyson)
Re: booting stops when trying to mount partitions. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK (A transfinite number of
monkeys)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John Dyson)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John Dyson)
Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451733 (Pascal Haakmat)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 08:53:20 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Quoting John Dyson from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Fri, 07 Jul 2000
> [...]
> >> 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.
>
> But these are constraints on redistribution, not use.
>
"Redistribution" is a very good form of use. Such redistribution
is necessary in many cases to make money (even if the code is
GPLed.) Given that, by taxing or limiting redistribution, that
limits the ways that the code is free.
Please avoid 'free speech arguments'. Free speech in the constitution
is a 'free <verb>'. Free speech is an allowed and supported <action> by
a living and breathing being. We are talking a 'free <thing>' as in
free use and reuse of the <thing>.
If "Free speech" was taken as a "free doco", then we are talking
copyright
or IP type issues. That isn't what "free speech" in the constitution
refers
to.
Things are not actions. (Nouns are not verbs).
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: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 08:55:43 -0500
Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > You show only one example where the GPL and BSDL code might be used
> > together.
>
> In the FreeBSD kernel, I think (the ext2 file system).
>
Specifically, it is "used" together, but before the BSDL changed, it
wasn't legal to redistribute. That is why the EXT2 code wasn't in the
default (redistributed) kernel. I know, I did the final port and
included
it into the kernel. (Godmar Back did the original work, and I was
responsible for the inclusion, and I put the code into the GPL
encumbered
subtree.)
I have dealt with the GPL encumberance issues before, very sucessfully.
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Hardware Compatibility Lists - Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 13:59:18 GMT
On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 01:58:14 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
Errrr wrong.
The vast majority of people, unfortunately, buy or have bought
pre-loads which are notorious for including Win hardware to keep the
price low. Some models even have proprietary chasis which makes
substituting replacement hardware difficult. You also have the "I
already own a modem/printer/scanner, why should I have to replace them
just to run Linux?" question.
This group is living in a fantasy land in which they build their own
computers (as I do) and like to have control over every piece of
hardware and software down to the last bit. There is nothing wrong
with that, I do it myself. However, the rest of the population doesn't
operate like that.
They walk into Compusa and say "give me the $899.00 model".
I just went on a shopping spree for my daughters middle school
graduation present and ending up buying her an iMac (wonderful
machine, I should have bought a Mac years ago). The Windows pre-loads
were everywhere and it was virtually impossible to tell what types of
Win hardware they had. The only way was to look at the manufacturer of
the hardware and then find it for sale elsewhere in the store and work
from there.
Very tiring, considering the number of systems to choose from.
>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.
I can't vouch for the Linux part, but I do know 2 shops in my area
that were targeted by Microsoft. Of course they were also selling
Win2k for $15.00 on a custom burned CD :)
They deserve it. Microsoft or not, piracy is wrong.
>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.
You're back to the build it yourself machine.
Pre-loads, both already purchased and future purchases are the mass
market.
MS pulled a fast one, and I don't even think they realized how big a
coup it was, when they started the Win hardware garbage.
They are effectively locking other operating systems out of the
largest market (joe sixpack) with it.
Again pre-loads are infested with Win hardware.
>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).
My Impala SS does quite nicely :)
>> 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.
You got lucky, just like I did with my scanner, printer and USB
digital camera on my iMac.
These were bought long before the word iMac was even in my vocabulary.
They just happened to work, perfectly.
>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.
I think the Mac has some kind of a hardware adapter. The have one for
USB/SCSI I know.
>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.
But MY devices also work on the iMac.
Not under Linux USB though.
>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.
I feel MS has a 2 prong approach. First they really do want to advance
technology and make things better.
Secondly, and some would argue firstly, they want to keep moving the
target to screw their competitors.
Ford and Chevy don't have this problem because nobody expects Ford
parts to work in a Chevy.
>
>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.
And back in the good old days Creative was trying to squash everyone
else who came along trying to claim compatibility.
Adlib was one. Pro-Audio Spectrum was another, until they licensed
real chips from Creative.
>
>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).
I had a similar result with a Thinkpad. In addition last year when I
had to have everything y2k compliant I had to update Word (my day job
requires it), not office, just Word97. I went to the MS site and had
to load down the ENTIRE MS OFFICE FIXPACK so IT could figure out what
components needed upgrading. What a mess.
>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.
What about the millions of folks who already have a system and want to
try Linux?
>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.
I would agree. When I installed Linux I didn't expect my PP scanner to
work. I did expect full function out of my SBLive and Canon (pp at the
time) printer because they were supported.
I got half useful devices.
>> > 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).
Where do I collect my check?
In my case it is pure entertainment. Nothing more nothing less.
DP
------------------------------
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: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 09:01:28 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Quoting John Dyson from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 05 Jul 2000
> [...]
> >The GPL is yet another commercial license (with source code available)
> >in sheeps clothing :-).
>
> I think that is a very adequate and agreeable way of putting it. I will
> point out, however, that there is no monetary cost for a GPL license, so
> your statement that it isn't "free" isn't very clear to me.
>
Well, there isn't even any guarantee that GPLed software is free $$$.
There
might be some cases where buying a copy is free $$$, but the only way to
get it for free $$$ requires net time.
At that point, I can only use it, when in my possession. If I add code
to it,
then I have to offer to give away my value-added source code also. That
means
that the code isn't really free $$$ to me, because of my VERY
SIGNIFICANT
opportunity cost. If I can ONLY use it for free $$$, then it isn't
necessarily
free. Please refer to the various very encumbered (but free-sample)
commercial
libraries for an example of code that initially costs nothing, but isn't
free.
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: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 09:07:29 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Quoting John Dyson from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 05 Jul 2000
> [...]
> >Actually, I am not talking about 'liberty', I am talking about the GPL.
> >You continue to create straw-men by adding in superfluous notions. Lets
> >argue about the moon being made of green cheese also, but that doesn't offer
> >any help on the issue of the GPL being non-free.
>
> Neither did that. Why do you say that "the GPL" is "non-free"?
>
No-one has proven the software encumbered by the GPL is free. God
doesn't
create all software 'free', and that 'free' attribute is taken away from
people. Software is 'free' only after the creator and owner give it
away
by licensing it for free and (no,very weak)-strings attached use and
reuse.
GPL redistribution encumberancs are not 'very weak', because
1) The encumberances of the original source/binaries
that cover only the domain of the original creation of the owner.
2) The encumberances of the original source/binaries
that also cover the contributions of other people who add code, which
might
be (are often) more significant than the code of the original owner.
Item (1) above is probably okay to allow the GPL to be called 'free',
since
the original code bearer is only encumbering his/her own work. Item (2)
is the killer that really disqualifies the GPL from being free.
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: booting stops when trying to mount partitions.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 14:09:39 GMT
On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 12:28:39 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I was running Linux Mandrake 6.0.
^^^^
You said it yourself :)
Actually if the CD is bootable, like 7.0, you can go into rescue mode
and fix the FSTAB file.
I wish you luck.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 14:18:09 GMT
On 7 Jul 2000 22:35:38 GMT, John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: This article contains some truth, and IMO misses some. Anybody with time
: on Mac and Linux might try to balance the strengths of each. The balance
: varies with the values of the observer.
Misses *some*? Let's see, here's a few:
1) perl4 -> perl5 changed everything.
Bzzt. If you properly wrote your perl4 code, you didn't have a problem
when perl5 came out. How much change did my code require? A couple of
things, like the change in the way the year was reported by localtime(),
so change to $year += 1900; Done, code was fixed, and even made y2k
compliant.
2) Cisco's free config tools "disappeared".
My foot. ConfigMaker is still a free download. No need to buy CiscoWorks
as he states.
3) OpenSource software is simpler than commercial equivalents.
Yeah, where's that CORBA based object model in the MacOS Desktop? Not
there in OS 9 or even OS X. GNOME has had that for quite some time now,
and it's stable.
--
Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
------------------------------
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: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 09:44:35 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Quoting John Dyson from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 05 Jul 2000
> [...]
> >You don't know me: I am not a corporate boot licker (but are you an
> >RMS toadie?) :-). Please note that, unlike most reading this, I don't
> >have to answer to any sort of organization with an agenda (that includes
> >the FSF, or corporations.) I do own LOTS of stock, but certainly avoid
> >the valueless ones that have (in their corporate charter, formally or
> >informally) an intention to avoid gaining assets.
>
> It isn't who you answer to which sways your opinion, it is your
> self-interest. Owning lots of stock, and avoiding those which attempt
> to encourage development of the science and useful art of software and
> prefer profiteering, does not speak highly of your honesty in this
> matter.
>
Actually, your statement isn't correct: Valueless companies don't
accumulate IP for ownership. GPL companies don't really develop
science,
but more often reimplementation -- they cannot afford to develop
new ideas -- those are most often very expensive. Profeteering based
upon ideas created (like possible for add-on developers under the BSDL)
is much better than profeteering based upon IP that cant be controlled
by
those who create or own it (Like for add-on under the GPL.) For
example,
THE most common way to make money under GPL is by marketeering on the
backs of developers who add code to GPLed works and who can never
control the fruits of their work because of the GPL source code
redistribution encumberances. Marketeers (like GPL redistributors)
have always most often been in control of markets. The add-on
developer,
when the GPL isn't in the way, have much more control and has better
opportunity.
A company has a fiduciary responsibility to stockholders to create
profit
and accumulate, but not loose assets. By creating no-value, the company
is dwendling away resources. Marketeering is a ferangi type enterprise,
and short lived. The company must build-up and control assets or just
be fleeting. The Internet "name-recognition" boom is over.
Sure, I don't invest in organizations that marketeer-only. I do invest
in organizations that might do SOME GPL work, but a predominant GPL org
is really a waste to spend money on -- that is all it is -- spending
money. In that case of spending money, my money goes to charity, rather
than ferangi.
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: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 09:48:04 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >Hey, I am not arguing against GPL, I am arguing against lying. You are
> >ONLY defending lies and deception by defending the unqualified term
> >'free' when describing the GPL...
>
> You are not arguing, you are just lying. Which is to say that you are
> mistaken, and don't understand why your mistake is important. Now that
> I've pointed out what your mistake is, do you suppose you'll re-evaluate
> your position?
>
Calling the GPL 'free' is a lie. Almost everyone who is calling the
GPL free, also give exceptions to show how it isn't free. The lie
is obvious.
Some GPL advocates just want to pepetuate the lie, and it 'feels good'
to call the GPL free. It even provides some marketing advantage. It
is 'just convienient', but to the informed, it is also a lie to call
the GPL free.
If it wasn't so obvious, I would be offended by your claims that I am
lying. It is VERY obvious that you are reassiging blame for the GPL
lie to me.
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pascal Haakmat)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,nl.scouting
Subject: Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451733
Date: 8 Jul 2000 15:02:03 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Still no answer.
>
>Why do you resist providing one, Pascal? It was, after all,
>my question. Why do you keep responding just to tell me that
>you still have no answer for me?
Still no answer.
--
Rate your CSMA savvy by identifying the writing styles of
ancient and recent, transient and perdurable CSMA inhabitants:
(35 posters, 259 quotes)
<http://awacs.dhs.org/csmatest>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
