Linux-Advocacy Digest #575, Volume #27 Mon, 10 Jul 00 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Bourne-again Superuser)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Windows (root)
Re: Vote for the best WinTroll - COLA Oscars ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Why use Linux? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Why use Linux? (abraxas)
Re: Why use Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Stefaan A Eeckels)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bourne-again Superuser)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 21:00:45 GMT
In article <8k9aqs$o9i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Steve Mading wrote:
>:>
>:> The tactic of assuming that the only reason someone disagrees with
>:> you is because they don't have all the information is egotism.
>:>
>: The tactic of continuing a lie is a little worse than a little
>: bit of egotism :-).
>
> Look, it isn't a lie if I actually believe it to be true. You can
> accuse me of being false. You can accuse me of being mislead, but
> you can't accuse me of lying, since it's pretty darn obvious I
> actually believe what I'm saying. This sort of ad hominem isn't
> going to swing me over to your point of view. Once upon a time you
> had a chance of convincing me. You don't anymore. I'm done with
> this thread. It's a shame, really, since I'll admit that with a little
> more convincing, and some better arguing, there's a chance I might
> have changed my mind.
>
I have had ISP problems: Here is a proof that the GPL is clearly
not unqualified 'free' software. Don't lump yourself into
the group of liars, if you haven't read the proof. You likely
haven't ever been provided a counter argument.
Perhaps you haven't read the reasons why GPLed
programs aren't free...
Firstly lets define terms:
Program can be one of any of below:
a) runnable binary.
b) source code.
c) binary and source code packaged together.
In common parlance (and that is what we speak
to more strongly than techno-speak), a program
is the runnable binary. The runnable binary is
more important to end users than source code
(at least in the shorter term.) Source code
is included also.
Lets define free as being able to freely use
the program above and freely redistribute it.
Reasons why free as defined as above:
d) Just allowing free use and not free
redistribution is also very characteristic
of commercial licenses.
e) Since 'sharing' is a conceptual 'hallmark'
that is touted so highly by the GPL, that
sharing should be included.
Lets acknowledge that GPL allows use and free
redistribution under many circumstances. GPL,
in fact, doesn't disallow immediate execution
in any reasonable circumstance. That
indeed needs to be stipulated, otherwise other
nonsense puffery will come into this argument.
The issue here is that the term 'free' as in
'free software' is used in an unqualified fashion,
and also any serious attempt by 'outsiders' is
often spammed against. So, the claim that GPL
is 'free' software is VERY VERY strong. Please
refer to the RMS opinion articles and also some
opinions in this group.
Now, the strong belief that GPLed programs are
'free' or 'free software' is easily refuted:
Facts about the GPL:
aa) If you want to give a binary, you cannot
give that binary away without a bona-fide
offer to give the exact equivalent source
code to that recipient also.
bb) If you have modified the GPL sourcecode
that you might have in-fact received, and
you wish to redistribute the derived works,
then you still must also offer to give
the source code to that recipient when
giving that derived binary away.
Note that software usage is defined as
immediate execution, linking and in the
sense of 'free' software, giving it away
to friends, families and enemies. Software
redistribution is transferring a piece of
software in whole or in part. There is no
attempt in the GPL to say that EVERYTHING
be transferred, except that bona-fide source
code in conjunction with corresponding binaries.
Now, we need to define the circumstances where
GPL is free and not free. Please note the
stipulation above that it is okay to immediately
execute GPLed code in your possession.
1) You cannot give GPLed binaries to those whom
you also cannot give the CORRESPONDING source
code. As a matter of fiduciary responsibilty
to the organization that you work for, and to
prove the case that you are in fact
performing the transfer of the correct source
code, you must either trust your vendor with
faith, or do the compile yourself.
2) GPLed software, when modified in source code
form, even if substantially modified and
improved much beyond it's original form,
requires that the source code also be covered
by that exact same license with no
significant modification. The works, in law,
are often called 'derived works', and as
such the person who adds the code can't
choose the initial license (of course).
Very often, original, publically available
code needs alot more work than the original
author puts in to it. It is all fair for
license terms to be chosen by the original
author, especially since subseqent developers
can choose to avoid potentially onerous
terms.
GPL, as a license, and as the choice of the
original author (without other information)
pre-ordains (forces) the notion that people
who add code, must also give the source
code that they produce, along
with the original code (not really, but they
do have to give the 'derived works' which
isn't necessarily the sum, but might only be
a small proportion of the original code.)
An unfortunate side-defect of law makes almost
any added code (even if alot more than the
original) somewhat legally subordinate to the
original licensing. GPL chooses to capitalize
on this, enforcing more rules than necessary,
restricting redistribution to certain
situations allowable under the license.
Both of the case above, there are serious
exclusions to calling the GPLed code 'free'.
Now -- there is a reason for my seperation of
programs into three categories, and this can
perhaps clarify things further.
aaa) If you receive a source-only or a source
and binary package, and redistribute it
AS-IS, then the GPLed package can be
considered 'free.' It MUST be taken as
a package without modification for that
redistribution to be free. Also, the
original packager should warantee the
fact that the package is intact, and
the right source code is in there.
bbb) If you receive a binary-only package, with
a promise that source code be delivered to
you, you are not safely free to send the
binary to other people, until you receive
the source code and offer it to the other
people in line. Once you receive the source
code, you aren't really safe to redistribute
the binary code, until you can verify that
the source is correct. Given that, it is
wise to recompile, and QC the newly compiled
binary. Then you can safely give it to
someone else. There is no guarantee (as
any developer knows) that a compiler will
always compile code correctly, and produce
the correct binary.
ccc) If you modify source code (which is indeed
an almost inseperable part of the GPLed
software) YOUR OWN WORK becomes encumbered
and as any programmer knows, their own work
has very significant opportunity cost...
(Even if said cost is avoiding a heathy
game of sport, or a date instead of
programming :-)).
As you can see, there are several, onerous
restrictions to the GPL being 'free'. Please
show where the BSDL has such serious restrictions
BUILT IN like the GPL does (none). The choice
for restrictions is deferred in the case of really
free licenses, and as you receive the code
that is honestly called 'free', the restrictions
are not in place for you.
In the case of the GPL (and incorrectly calling
it 'free'), those restrictions and hoops
regarding source encumberance are already
built in, and probably cause those who invest
BIG TIME into software development to avoid
the GPL code all together. With free licenses,
the choice of 'derived works' being free
can be deferred. But, IN NO WAY, when the
code is 'free' is the 'free'ness of the orignal
code rescended. IN NO WAY, when the code
is 'free' do redistribution encumberances get
in the way of code being given away. With
'free' licenses, you can give binaries away
without respect to source code, so you don't
need source code to give 'free' code away.
With 'free' licenses you can give all of the
code or none of the code away, and anywhere
in between, either source or binaries.
With GPL YOU, the redistributor must be able
to bona-fide give source code to your binary
recipient. More often than not, the average
non-programmer cannot guarantee that.
So, the cases above clearly demonstrate that
GPLed code isn't free, except in some limited
ways. By such limitations, it is important
to qualify them, and phrase coinage is a good
way to do so.
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:52:23 GMT
At least in the USA, a very small portion of the population (the
wealthiest) control the rest of us "prols".
I like to call it a "corporate oligarchy".
Mark S. Bilk and I agree on this topic among others.
DP
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:54:26 GMT, Mathias Grimmberger
>Sorry. I don't understand. Why do only the Fortune 500 matter to the
>WWW? What has size to do with relevance anyway?
------------------------------
From: root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Windows
Date: 10 Jul 2000 21:36:11 GMT
I still say Windows sucks.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Vote for the best WinTroll - COLA Oscars
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:54:36 GMT
Amy is my wife.
Heather is her middle name.
At one time we shared accounts, but she has since gotten her own
account.
Wonder why that is?
DP
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:29:22 -0500, "Bobby D. Bryant"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>James wrote:
>
>> Steve / DP,
>>
>> Very good, but you lost points when you posed as the Wong couple. Even I
>> could spot your "signature" in that post.
>> But don't worry, you are still a strong contender.
>
>I liked it the time he posted as "Amy" but then *literally* signed it as
>"Steve".
>
>Bobby Bryant
>Austin, Texas
>
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:58:30 -0500
James wrote:
> Check out the MS advert in the June 6 edition of PC Magazine, where MS
> endorses the study by National Software Testing Labs which states that
> Windows 98 is 13 times less reliable than Win2k. I am no linvocate, but I
> find it incredible that a company can make this admission and then still
> push this (Win98/WinMe) onto the market.
> Shame on you MS!!!
They used to have a Web page touting NT as being k time more reliable than
Windows 9x. (I forget the k, but IIRC it was more like 40 than 13. Anyone
remember?)
Anyway, they supported the assertion with their own poll, which still showed
a truly horrendous number of people reporting that they lost time or data at
least once a month under NT. (OK, by my standards *one* such loss would be
"truly horrendous". But this was much worse than that; something like 30%
IIRC.)
Alas, I can't find *any* of this either on Deja or Google. Does anyone of
sounder mind remember the details?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
p.s. -- Give up WinTrolling, Mr. Bond?
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:59:30 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> That IS unusual. I work with AS/400's all the time (on the hardware
> end) and they are extremely reliable. Very seldom do they crash and in
> fact one of the biggest problems they do have is that they seem to
> never be powered down. On an older AS/400 that has been powered up for
> ages, powering it off can cause all kinds of problems like disk
> stiction, power supply problems, blowers siezing and so forth.
>
> Just goes to show that a crap programmer can bring any system to it's
> knees.
>
> DP
My point exactly. It took years of sloppy programming, and basically
diving into the guts of the system where no mortal should tread, but
they did manage to fully hose up and AS/400. Sometimes I wonder what
the hell keeps humanity moving forward (if they are moving forward).
When we always have at least as many people pushing backwards as trying
to move forwards, it really makes you wonder.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 22:02:06 GMT
On 10 Jul 2000 21:00:45 GMT, Bourne-again Superuser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8k9aqs$o9i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>: Steve Mading wrote:
>>:>
>>:> The tactic of assuming that the only reason someone disagrees with
>>:> you is because they don't have all the information is egotism.
>>:>
>>: The tactic of continuing a lie is a little worse than a little
>>: bit of egotism :-).
>>
>> Look, it isn't a lie if I actually believe it to be true. You can
>> accuse me of being false. You can accuse me of being mislead, but
>> you can't accuse me of lying, since it's pretty darn obvious I
>> actually believe what I'm saying. This sort of ad hominem isn't
>> going to swing me over to your point of view. Once upon a time you
>> had a chance of convincing me. You don't anymore. I'm done with
>> this thread. It's a shame, really, since I'll admit that with a little
>> more convincing, and some better arguing, there's a chance I might
>> have changed my mind.
>>
>I have had ISP problems: Here is a proof that the GPL is clearly
>not unqualified 'free' software. Don't lump yourself into
The only problem is that you choose for rhetorical reasons
to focus on one and only one definition of the word free.
The only thing that L/GPL restricts is the manner in which
you distribute derived works. Don't derive and you don't
have a problem.
This has the effect of ensuring that the software and any
works derived from it will always be accessable to it's
users.
Now, arbitrarily redefining end users to mean only people
that need binaries conveniently avoids anyone that might
want to be free to choose whatever platform they like to
compute on like for example a special effects house or
an online services provider or perhaps just an end user
that might want to run more than just kludge klones.
[deletia]
The only motivation to treat a work derived from Free Software
as your sole personal property is to place some sort of market
barrier in front of your customers and to try and trap them.
--
The only motivation to treat a work derived from Free Software
as your sole personal property is to place some sort of market
barrier in front of your consumers and to try and trap them.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 22:03:38 GMT
What is level 3 Communications?
My phone number is not blocked in any way so if Earthlink logs calls
they can easily see it was not me.
Personally, like I said before, they really don't care. Heck they
can't even block SPAM properly.
DP
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:12:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (TNT) wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 00:44:26 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
><8kb6qm$3u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>What good would taking it to Earthlink do since it was not involved with
>>this incident?
>
>I think Earthlink uses Level 3 Communications' dialup network in New York.
>
>Hope you already have reported to Level 3, as this case may involves IP
>spoofing which I think is more serious than just a portscan.
------------------------------
From: [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 17:13:18 -0500
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:16:26 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 22:02:42 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 00:19:50 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 18:44:17 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 23:26:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>when said peripheral is newish and uses a common, well-supported interface?
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not at all established here actually.
>>>>>
>>>>> An SBLive uses a common, well-supported interface but you don't
>>>>> expect it to work in a G4 do you?
>>>>
>>>>Well, not THIS month, but I hold out hope for one of the next few
>>>>months.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You would always try it under Yellow Dog... <snicker>
>>
>>Why? So I can run Linux on overpriced Mac hardware, rather than
>>running the same thing (with much better support) on faster, cheaper
>>Intel hardware?
>
> Actually, PPC is relatively well supported as a Linux platform.
But not as good as Intel.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:59:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 07:30:52 GMT, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>You cannot guarantee freedom by removing it.
>>The GPL provides a nice counter example.
>How does the GPV guarantee freedom by removing it?
I'm sorry, have you been sleeping? The freedom to play with
derivative works is increased by the GPL, this increase more than
counters the lose of freedom on the other hand. This is a value
judgement. This is an opinion. As an opinion, you can share it, you
can not share it, you can adopt other opinions that directly
contradict it. However, if you do, doesn't lessen the degree to which
others might hold the original opinion.
>If you remove freedom, you remove freedom.
Of course. And it you guarantee freedom, you guarantee it.
>You don't guarantee or increase freedom.
Sure it does.
>You remove freedom.
Not to a greater extent than we increase it.
>If you remove freedom, there's less freedom.
Of course.
>This would seem to be obvious, and I am totally at a loss as to why
>people don't see it.
This would seem to be so obvious to all that I should not have to
explain it over and over and over again. I'm at a loss as to why you
cannot see it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: 10 Jul 2000 22:19:03 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> That IS unusual. I work with AS/400's all the time (on the hardware
> end) and they are extremely reliable. Very seldom do they crash and in
> fact one of the biggest problems they do have is that they seem to
> never be powered down. On an older AS/400 that has been powered up for
> ages, powering it off can cause all kinds of problems like disk
> stiction, power supply problems, blowers siezing and so forth.
>
> Just goes to show that a crap programmer can bring any system to it's
> knees.
>
AFAIK, the newer ones do not have this problem.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 22:23:08 GMT
The truly sad part is that the client suffered and was most likely
paying $200/hr for an incompetent programmer.
It's amazing what goes on in Computer Rooms these days :(
DP
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:59:30 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> That IS unusual. I work with AS/400's all the time (on the hardware
>> end) and they are extremely reliable. Very seldom do they crash and in
>> fact one of the biggest problems they do have is that they seem to
>> never be powered down. On an older AS/400 that has been powered up for
>> ages, powering it off can cause all kinds of problems like disk
>> stiction, power supply problems, blowers siezing and so forth.
>>
>> Just goes to show that a crap programmer can bring any system to it's
>> knees.
>>
>> DP
>
>My point exactly. It took years of sloppy programming, and basically
>diving into the guts of the system where no mortal should tread, but
>they did manage to fully hose up and AS/400. Sometimes I wonder what
>the hell keeps humanity moving forward (if they are moving forward).
>When we always have at least as many people pushing backwards as trying
>to move forwards, it really makes you wonder.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:53:42 +0200
In article <8kcs5n$qn8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels) wrote:
>
>> If anything is religious, it's people arguing that their
>> interpretation of "free" is the only one.
>
> And what else has the FSF been doing the last 25 years or so?
> Oh, they concede the existence of something called "free as in free
> beer", but they claim sole ownership of the definition of "free
> as in free speech" to signify only what they say when applied to
> software.
We were, if IIRC, not discussing the activities of the FSF, but
whether there is something dishonest about calling a GPLed program
"free". It would seem obvious to me that the author of a license
would think it superior to anything else. But don't forget that
the FSF publicly acknowledges that other licenses are also
"free". This is an entirely reasonable and balanced viewpoint.
> Just go to a RMS speech and try to tell him that IYHO SCSL software
> is "free as in free speech" software. See what happens.
I don't know SCSL, but I know that RMS publicly acknowledges other
licenses to be free. Whether SCSL (whatever it is) makes the grade
is neither here nor there.
>> After all,
>> proselitising religion is about choosing a set of values,
>> and then behaving like everyone else is ignorant, malicious
>> or deluded when they don't see it your way.
>>
>> The GPL grants a number of rights (or "freedoms"), over
>> and above the rights granted by the current copyright
>> law. Hence it is not unreasonable, nor dishonest, to call
>> it free, as everyone understands that "free" never means
>> "utterly without restrictions". That these "freedoms" might
>> not be enough to some is wholly their privilege, and they
>> are _free_ to use the GPL, or use GPLed software, or not use
>> either.
>
> By this definition, any software for which you can buy a license
> is free software, since it grants you freedoms beyond current
> copyright law, as soon as you agree to some restrictions (as
> everyone understands) like "you must pay me $399 first, and not
> give it to anyone else".
That would be a typical NDL (Non-Disclosure License). Yes, it would
give more freedom than a license to use the binary on a single
computer and not disassemble or reverse engineer it.
But if it doesn't grant me the right to modify it, so that the
program really fits my needs, I'd never pay a buck for it.
I think you might find a lot of support for refusing the
label "free" for your license, but it remains a value judgement.
It's a bit like the Jehova's Witnesses. The mainstream religions
claim it's a cult, they claim to be a religion.
--
Stefaan
--
Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules:
The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of
the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
