Linux-Advocacy Digest #569, Volume #27 Mon, 10 Jul 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linux code going down hill (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Why use Linux? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Why use Linux? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Joe Ragosta)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:34:29 -0400
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> I've always maintained what is obvious: Netcraft JUST counts domains and
> doesn't discriminate between a linux/apache domain of "joesmomma.com" vs
> W2K/IIS for dell.com - to Netcraft, they mean the same. So, all this Apache
> dominates the web is for those that think PURE number counts mean
> EVERYTHING. Bullshit I say. Someone finally proved it out for me.
>
> The companies that matter, those top companies, you know, money making ones?
> Companies that are concerned about their image, product, availability,
> uptime, performance and all that matters cause their name/image on-line
> matters - they are NOT using apache and MOST DEFINATLEY not using Linux!
>
You're kidding, right?
For 5 of the last 6 years, I have worked on Fortune 50 and a stock
brokerage. NONE of them puts webservers on LoseDOS Neutered Technology.
> +===+===+===
>
> http://www.entmag.com/displayarticle.asp?searchresult=1&ID=6150095626AM
>
> "The dominant position of Microsoft's proprietary IIS in the Fortune 500
> makes Windows NT a lock for the most used operating system undergirding the
> Web servers -- 43 percent. "
>
> == and ==
>
> http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2817
>
> "According to ENT's survey of Fortune 500 companies and their Web sites, IIS
> is the most commonly used Web server, with 41% of the market. In second
> place is Netscape/iPlanet with 35%. And the supposedly dominant Apache
> brings up the rear with only 15% of Fortune 500 deployments. Thanks to the
> success of IIS, Windows NT/2000 is also the most commonly used operating
> system on Fortune 500 Web sites: NT is used on 43% of such sites. Sun
> Microsystems Solaris comes in second with 36%. But the real surprise for
> those people that religiously follow the Netcraft surveys is that Linux
> "falls into the noise level," according to ENT, with only 10 companies in
> the Fortune 500 using the upstart open source OS to deploy their production
> sites. Even IBM AIX and HP/UX have 15 deployments each, and BSD/OS tops
> Linux with 14. "
--
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.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:35:07 -0400
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> <bow>
>
A legend in his own behind.
> "Darren Winsper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 09:24:46 +0400, Ferdinand V. Mendoza
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Folks, watch out. Dress 10 is Baaaacccckkkkkkhhhhhh!
> >
> > That's not such a bad thing. Drestin us capable of bringing up valid
> > points, even if he is a tad biased (And let's face it, who here
> > isn't?).
> >
> > --
> > Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
> > Stellar Legacy project member - http://stellarlegacy.sourceforge.net
> > DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
> > This message was typed before a live studio audience.
--
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.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:40:44 -0400
On 10 Jul 2000, Mark Wooding wrote:
> [John Dyson] wrote:
> [In response to the example of Kerberos]
>> It does show a lack of understanding. The argument is also weak...
>> Please refer to the triumph of the (really free) XFree86 over the
>> unfortunate attempt by the X consortium.
> But the non-copyleft nature of XFree86 is being taken advantage of
> frequently. We're being given servers derived from XFree86 with
> proprietary hardware drivers in them. This is convenient for users of
> some bits of graphics hardware. But this is an insidious process: the
> convenience of having a driver *now* overcomes most users' desire for
> free software, and it's slowly becoming `acceptable' for X hardware
> drivers to be hoarded, and if this continues, it will be all but
> impossible to run a free-software operating system on modern client
> hardware.
> If XFree86 were copylefted, for example with the GPL, this couldn't
> happen.
You meant to say that if XFree86 was GPLed, you wouldn't be able to run
a open source operating system on modern client hardware AT ALL, as the
companies wouldn't bother revealing their driver access information
anyway, nor would they bother developing drivers for programs where
they had to release the software. Force people to release source code
or not play the game, and companies won't play the game. Especially
hardware companies that would be required to reveal the hardware
operations to competitors in providing such.
You might consider rereading the Cathedral and the Bazaar.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:47:49 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 9 Jul 2000 20:06:18
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 8 Jul 2000 00:55:12
> >> [...]
> >>>It is actually a reasonable case to make a theoretical argument,
> >>>though. Suppose MS did actually copy the base code and would
> >>>not have been able to if it had been GPL'd. The alternative
> >>>would not have been MS giving away the source to win2k, it
> >>>would have been writing something themselves that would
> >>>almost certainly have been badly designed by comparison.
> >>>Most of us would be affected at least to some extent by
> >>>broken code on our networks. How can anyone possibly think
> >>>it is a good idea to encourage that?
> >
> >>The GPL encourages bad design?
> >
> >This is a theoretical case, but assume that a good standard actually
> >is implementated with GPL'd reference code. The GPL prevents
> >it being used in a vast number of circumstances, so those instances
> >are forced to invent something that that not only is not as
> >good, but is unlikely to interoperate correctly with the copy
> >that you use.
>
> The GPL would only prevent it being used in one single circumstance:
> profiteering. You certainly make the case for GPLing all reference code
> for interoperability standards, but I doubt that wouldn't seem extreme
> to the market at this point in time.
>
> >>I don't think so. Corporations that
> >>want to profiteer on IP encourage bad design.
> >
> >Perhaps, but the way to avoid that is to make the reference
> >code usable by all, in any combination with anything else,
> >not to prevent use of the well-tested base code.
>
> No, the way to avoid that is to avoid profiteers. Since they don't
> generally get into a position you can avoid them, that usually requires
> legal action. Soon the Supreme Court may make a decision that this will
> finally be possible in the software markets.
>
> >>The GPL does not
> >>contradict commercial development, distribution, or sale of software.
> >
> >Yes it does. Where is the GPL'd component that incorporates
> >DES encryption or RSA, etc. No GPL'd code can be included in
> >any software that requires non-GPL'd code.
>
> So don't GPL your code, nobody's forcing you to. Just because no GPL
> code can be included in any software that "requires non-GPL'd code" (I'm
> not sure what that means) does not mean that GPL contradicts commercial
> development, distribution, or sale of software. In fact it sounds like
> it only contradicts commercial development, distribution, and sale of
> non-GPL software, and while that may not be the same as promoting the
> development/sale of GPL software, it does seem to have a similar effect.
>
> >>Merely commercial ownership of software.
> >
> >And since they can't be combined, anything that requires components
> >that are commercially owned cannot have any GPL'd parts.
>
> A very common mistake, this is. Software can be combined in a variety
> of ways that don't require combining source code. If you want to make
> up an imaginary or potential case where this becomes difficult, feel
> free, but I don't care how difficult the job is if your work is
> predicated on keeping intellectual property secret, your job should be
> difficult, because intellectual property shouldn't be secret.
>
> >Just
> >like things that are less restricted than the GPL. Neither one
> >makes any sense from the perspective of potential users of this
> >prohibited code.
>
> It is the "commercial" code which is "prohibited". Open source software
> is not prohibited at all, unless you're a profiteer.
Uh.... suppose the BSD TCP stack was GPL.
Now, suppose MS ported it to windows 3.11 and called it, say,
winsock.dll.
Believe it or not, they would not be able to include winsock.dll as part
of windows 3.11[1]. No non-GPL application could EVER link to
winsock.dll.
No BSD application would be able to link to winsock.dll.
What would the internet be, then?
[1] This is according to FSF interpretation: if winsock.dll links to any
other system
library, they would have to provide the source to winsock.dll, and "the
source code
distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in
either source
or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on)
of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable. "
So, they would have to include source to all components of the OS on
which winsock.dll
relies. And then, according to extreme GPL theory, those component's
source would have
to be distributed under the GPL, and the chain reaction will probably
end with the
whole OS under the GPL, thus making winsock.dll distribution impossible.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:43:36 -0400
On 10 Jul 2000, Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It is the "commercial" code which is "prohibited". Open source software
>> is not prohibited at all, unless you're a profiteer.
> No, the GPL prohibits combining with any non-GPL licence. It has
> nothing to do with being commercial or making profit. It is just
> a restriction that prevents many useful developments.
That is better said "the GPL prohibits combining with any non-GPL or
GPL-compatible licence" (which means that it can be overridden by the
GPL's clauses).
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:50:53 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 19:01:56 -0500, John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 18:29:10 -0500, John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, 7 Jul 2000 17:15:23 -0400, Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >> >> >On 7 Jul 2000, 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.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Spec problem, not copyright problem. NEXT?
> >> >>
> >> >> IOW, the specification much like a licence wasn't sufficiently
> >> >> structured with abusive Robber Baron's in mind.
> >> >>
> >> >> That sort of mistake is precisely why the GPL came into existence.
> >> >>
> >> >The GPL is NO defense against a company like Microsoft, who could
> >> >reimplement Linux, with some help from a few UNIX-world OS developers
> >>
> >> ...this from the same company that can't even be bothered
> >> to keep it's MIPS, PPC and Alpha ports current?
> >>
> >Contract issues. Percieved market demand.
>
> As I've stated myself on numerous occasions: if it's truely
> portable "percieved market demand" is a piss poor excuse.
If porting to MIPS costs a cent more than what porting to MIPS earns,
it's a perfectly good excuse. Just keep it portable, and do the actual
port
whenever making a port actually will earn you money.
You know, MS is not in it for the computer theory implications.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:51:56 -0300
Mike Stump escribió:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >A simple counter example is the new BSDL (not necessarily the old
> >one.) There are also other, freer than GPL licenses.
>
> Please explain how the BSDL is freer in the sense that it doesn't
> allow slavery than the GPL. In this sense, the GPL is freer.
I thought that was a job for the constitution or somesuch, not for
a software license.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:45:57 -0400
abraxas wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > In article <8jnfn7$28pv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
> >> Paul Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >> > <snip>
> >> >> IMO, Solaris is more or less unusable until you add the GNU
> >> >> utilities to it. ( Does it even ship with a C++ compiler ??? )
> >> >
> >> > No. Hell, it doesn't even ship with something as basic as 'top'.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Solaris is an exceedingly specialized UNIX, linux is not UNIX at
> >> all. Linux is 'gnu-nux'.
> >
> > Well, if you REALLY want to nit-pick, Solaris isn't Unix either,
> > and I don't understand "highly specialized". What exactly is it
> > highly specialized for? Runs nicely as a desktop, database
> > server, web server, application server, X terminal server,
> > computational node, file server, names serveretc.
>
> So does VMS. Most OSes do.
Actually not.
VM/CMS doesn't.
Whatever and AS/400 runs is... well, it's good for "glass room"
computers, and nothing more... requires a whole bevy of priests
and accolytes to just keep the thing running. No graphic displays
(at least not that I've ever seen)... general print server?
Not at the price you pay for an AS/400--waste of clock cycles
and everything.)
NONE of the micro-computer OSes from the 70's and 80's do.
Atari GEM? AmigaOS or Commodore anything as a database server?
>
> > Specialized
> > OSes are more like real-time systems for data aquisitions,
> > manufacturing, telephony, etc.
> >
>
> Sorry, replace "specialized" with "shrink-wrapped, highly focused
> target market OS".
>
> >> If you do not know exactly why you need solaris, then you do not
> >> need solaris.
> >
> > What does that mean? If you don't know what you need any software
> > for, you probably don't need it.
> >
>
> Explain 70 million windows users.
>
> -----yttrx
--
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.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:51:43 -0400
On 10 Jul 2000, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If one and only one library can possibly make your code actually
>> *work*, then your work is a derivative work of the library.
> Are you stating that this is the opinion of the FSF, or your own?
This is as has been expressed by RMS in the past. (Remember his opinion on
plug-ins, Hyman. He's also not stupid, so he's probably also gotten
reasonably competent legal advice on this.)
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:50:55 -0400
void wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:30:48 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >I've already admitted that Windows is better in buzzword compliance. But
> >as soon as you have a _real_ argument (with evidence to support it),
> >feel free to post it.
>
> Preemptive multitasking is more than just a buzz-phrase -- it's an
> important part of the architecture of anything claiming to be a real OS.
> There's a good reason why it's one of the major marketing points for
> MOSX.
>
And considering that the fundamentals of pre-emptive multi-tasking
were figured out in the mid 1960's, what the hell took MicroSloth
so long to implement it in LoseDOS?
Hell, I wrote a pre-emptive multi-user multi-tasking kernal in
4 WEEKS on a lowly 8-bit, 1970's technology 6809 CPU.
The pre-emptive multi-tasking code took all of about 90 minutes to
write.
> --
> Ben
>
> 220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
--
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.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:53:07 -0400
On 10 Jul 2000, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Only the GPL claims to be 'free software', Mr Rosen.
>> Most others use the better, but still inadequate, term 'open source.'
>> It would help if you actually *read* what I write, because it's not what
>> you think it is.
> Or if you read what I write. Are you claiming that no one talks about
> free software except for GPL advocates?
They are the only ones that I've seen that use that level of imprecision.
ESR certainly doesn't promote 'free' software.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:58:57 -0300
Mike Stump escribió:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Analogies that use physical things (that is, where the use of that
> >physical thing denies use of that physical thing to the owner) will
> >never work. The use of virtual things do not deny the use of the
> >virtual thing to the owner.
>
> You say that like it was true or something. It is not true.
>
> A credit card is the ultimate in virtual money. The use of it by
> someone other than me, does in fact deprive me of the use of the same
> virtual thing. Also, mere `use' is not the only aspect that can be
> deprived. See my other posting for a more complete list, the first
> time this was brought up.
A credit card's money is no more virtual than a dollar bill.
How could it be, if you can exchange them one for one?
A credit card's "dollar" is simply a reference to a dollar you
promise to give to the bank in the not too distant future.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:54:33 -0400
On 10 Jul 2000, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Hmmmm... I think, honestly, that GPL-compatible is what the FSF *wants*
>> to have by 'free'; I know they've written an analysis of licences, but
>> they hurt their own statements that the MPL is 'free' by recommending
>> against the use of the licence.
> They recommend against the use of the license because it is not
> compatible with the GPL, and they would rather people use the GPL,
> or a license which is compatible with it.
(You meant to say ... "a licence which can be coopted by it.")
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:57:16 -0400
"Paul E. Larson" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >This is why:
> >
> >=== script output ===
> >
> >Mon Jul 10 13:42:15 SAST 2000
> > 1:42pm up 28 days, 1:23, 2 users, load average: 0.03, 0.14, 0.29
> >USER LINE LOGIN-TIME FROM
> >nicc tty2 Jun 12 14:13
> >nicc :0 Jul 5 15:07
> >
>
> To bad you and many others filto realize that uptime counts are virtually
> meaningless! The main machine at my place of employment has a MAXIMUM up time
> of 7 days. Every 7 days we IPL the machine regardless of anything. What does
> that fact tell you?
So, basically, what you are saying is that every minute of downtime
is PLANNED, DELIBERATE downtime. (And it's only purpose is to
re-initialize the OS in case any frequently-run code has memory
leaks. Downtime such as this has nothing to do with the OS.)
When I was an undergrad at Purdue in the 1980's, VAX-11's were
typically up for 60-days at a time before being taken down for
preventive maintenance (mostly just filesystem rebuilds... this
was before the Berkely Fast Filesystem...and thus, the easiest
was to "defrag" the disks was to use tar or dump to make a tape,
do a quick reformat of the partition, and then reload everything
from the tape. However, since about 1985, Unix systems have not
needed ANY sort of de-fragging stuff, as the filesystem is
smart enough to "defrag" a file as soon as it is closed for writing.
>
> Paul
>
> --
>
> "Mr. Rusk you not wearing your tie."
--
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.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:58:30 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:40:17 GMT, Paul E. Larson wrote:
>
> >To bad you and many others filto realize that uptime counts are virtually
> >meaningless! The main machine at my place of employment has a MAXIMUM up time
> >of 7 days. Every 7 days we IPL the machine regardless of anything. What does
> >that fact tell you?
>
> One of the following:
> (a) The admins enjoy rebooting for the hell of it
Could be management policies that are hold-overs from the 70's.
> (b) The machine requires regular reboots
If case (b) applies, it's due to ill-behaved software (memory leaks).
>
> Take your pick.
>
> --
> Donovan
--
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.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 19:00:26 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (void) wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:30:48 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >I've already admitted that Windows is better in buzzword compliance. But
> >as soon as you have a _real_ argument (with evidence to support it),
> >feel free to post it.
>
> Preemptive multitasking is more than just a buzz-phrase -- it's an
> important part of the architecture of anything claiming to be a real OS.
> There's a good reason why it's one of the major marketing points for
> MOSX.
If it's so essential, why do Macs still have higher productivity?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
