Linux-Advocacy Digest #579, Volume #27 Mon, 10 Jul 00 23:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Andres Soolo)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Why use Linux? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Why use Linux? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: License? (Adam Smith)
Steve/Mike's New Name And Old Ethics -was- What I've always said: Netcraft numbers
of full of it (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Peter Rottengatter)
Re: Linux code going down hill (abraxas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 21:58:45 -0400
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Mike Stump wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Mike Stump wrote:
>>> Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Care to prove it? (Hint: you can't.) From www.m-w.com, I find that:
>>> Thanks for the reference...
>>>> * 1free7[a-b] don't apply.
>>> 7a1 and 7b seem to apply fairly well. 10 usually applies.
>> 7a(1) : not obstructed or impeded : CLEAR
>> b : not hampered or restricted in its normal operation
>> I'm not sure why you think that either of these apply.
> I am am not sure why you don't think they apply.
I know that they don't apply. First, the GPL *does* raise restrictions
and impediments toward the development of certain classes of software
-- that are not limited to the proprietary software that GPLists so
hate.
>> 7b is definitely not true about GPLed software -- because part of the
>> normal operation is extension and redistribution, and there are
>> significant restrictions on that operation.
> You seem to think that reusing GPLed code in proprietary projects is
> the normal use of GPLed code, it is not.
Get a clue, Stump. I have argued against the GPL's idiocy from a
perspective of much less restrictive licences. Proprietary projects are
not the focus of my attack, merely a sideline. You've confused
yourself.
> Hint, take a servey of
> 10,000 people and ask them what they normally do with GPLed software.
> You'll gain a clearer picture of what normal operations for GPLed
> software is. You seem to think you understand what normal is, when it
> is clear to us that you do not.
My statement is not dependent upon *where* extension and redistribution
is used, but that there are restrictions on it, which invalidates the
use of meaning 7a or 7b for your foolishness.
>>>> * 1free10 often applies, but is the 'free beer' sense.
>>> Sounds like you agree with me on 10. If 10 often applies, then why is
>>> it a lie to call GPLed software, free software, when you even agree it
>>> often is.
>> Because the claim is that 'free software does not mean free beer, but
>> free speech'.
> I never claimed that 1free10 didn't apply to GPLed software. I never
> said that we must reject all notions of 1free10. The point remains,
> 1free10 usually applies. It isn't a lie to say that GPLed software is
> at times 1free10.
And I've never claimed anything about cost -- other open source
licences eliminate cost. The claim is, again, about 'free speech', not
'free beer'.
>> It's not the desired claim -- and it doesn't help your assertion that
>> GPLed software is 'free' (as in liberty) software.
> You must misunderstand my assertion. Claiming my point something that
> it is not, and then defeating it is useless.
>
> Not that you know what my point is, address it.
You had a point? Seems you've confused yourself on that matter.
>>>> * 1free12[a-b] doesn't apply.
>>> I think 12 b also applies nicely.
>> 12 b : not restricted by or conforming to conventional forms <free
>> skating>
>> Still doesn't seem to apply.
> Before rms addressed what he thought was a problem by coming up with
> the GPL, not many software packages in the world used terms as
> infectious as the GPL. The GPL was for its time, unconventional. PD
> was conventional for some software, use and enjoy and give me $10, was
> by then conventional as well. Straight proprietary software was
> conventional. An infectious clause as seen in the GPL was
> unconventional.
That applies to the days of the licence's creation, but doesn't mean
much anymore.
>> Sure, the permissions granted by the licence aren't 'conventional',
> Ok, we are agree, it isn't conventional.
>> Worse, it still doesn't apply to the 'liberty' claimed by GPLists.
> Again, you must not understand my point. You cannot counter my point
> without understanding it.
Maybe if you had a point, you might actually be able to state it
clearly, instead of the muddle-headedness that you've managed lately.
>>>> * 1free14 *might* apply, except that it refers to animates and not
>>>> inanimates.
>>> free is perfectly good slag use of 14. Also, I question your
>>> assertion. Look up slavery, 2 fits just fine, and it isn't limited to
>>> persons. Please prove that slavery can only be applied to persons.
>> free : 14 : not allowing slavery
>> slavery : 2 : submission to a dominating influence
>> I'd suggest that it's up to you to prove that nonanimates can be
>> described with an animate sense (in other words, prove that a tool can
>> be 'enslaved').
> A typical proprietary license to me when applied to PD software (or
> other software that one can get via ftp for free from the net), is a
> dominating influence. There I have proved the use of the term is
> appropriate. Now you prove it isn't. Prove that the application has
> no influence, prove that the influence is inconsequential.
-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: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: 11 Jul 2000 01:56:38 GMT
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a long way to make this happen. Then it brings up the age old paranoia
> that people have about how machines will take over the world if we allow
> them to *think*, but I think we could find ways around that. Make the
That's exactly why the Asimov's robots needed the Three Laws of Robotics :-)
> towards. I think that it is the only way to make sure that computers
> are truly *intuitive* to novice users. Make it something that can be
No more intuitive--that won't be the goal by then. Useful.
Would you say `intuitive' of a normal person?
> own they would start working against humanity, he took the unique
> approach of the computers using their political power to do so.
I'd guess properly programmed computer *not depending on a specific
subset fo humans* wouldn't. Remember, hate is a human emotion and
the desire to multiply is only inherent to biological organisms.
(And, well, memes, but for cardinally different reasons.)
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Often statistics are used as a drunken man uses
lampposts -- for support rather than illumination.
------------------------------
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 22:00:06 -0400
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Mike Stump wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Mike Stump wrote:
>>> John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> Are you a free man? Do you have any constraints placed upon you? Are
>>> there any rules and regulations that you must obey?
>> Is software now a legal person?
>> It's amazing that you can't tell the difference between a tool and a
>> person.
> Please explain what the above has to do with it.
Persons cannot be enslaved. Tools aren't persons, and therefore cannot be
enslaved. The same applies to software, since software is merely a tool.
Surely you can understand *that* difference, right?
-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
------------------------------
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 22:02:51 -0400
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Mike Stump wrote:
> Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Mr Stumped proves once again that he can't tell the difference
>> between a tool and a person. (Hint: animates can be enslaved, tools
>> -- inanimates -- cannot.)
> Prove it. The dictionary you cited didn't restrict the term slavery
> to only applying to humans or animates, it merely said:
Actually, you're the one making the extraordinary claim, Stump. Convince
the world that code can be enslaved, or that by the alleged enslavement of
code, developers are thereby enslaved.
(Hint: you can't. The language doesn't support meaningful sentences
that attempt to do so, which is different than supporting sentences
that pretend to do so. Look at Jabberwocky for a good example of what
might be grammatically correct but is still nonsensical -- like your
claim that software [an inanimate] can be enslaved.)
-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 22:11:02 -0400
"Paul E. Larson" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >"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.
>
> Nope, what I am saying is that uptime bragging is meaningless and worthless
> unless taken in context.
Not at all.
Windows will crash at the login prompt if you let it sit for a month.
Conversely, some unix machines have been forgotten about, and
only re-discovered during inventory....still humming along
nicely.
If you forget about a Windows machine, and it's running any
software that someone considers necessary...believe me, you
SILL be reminded of that particular machine's existance within
a month orso.
>
> 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 22:13:52 -0400
"Paul E. Larson" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >"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.
>
> Nope, what I am saying is that uptime bragging is meaningless and worthless
> unless taken in context.
And bragging that a Nuclear Sub can run submerged for MONTHS is
meaningless and worthless.
Windows: The diesel subs of computing.
>
> 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.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 21:22:37 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>>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.
The freedom to build derivative works is greater with the GPL than
no release at all, but since none of the original may be combined
with any other restricted code, the freedom is much less than
many other forms of open source.
>>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.
Why do you think removing the freedom to build works that are
also derivatives of other licenses is in any way increasing
freedom?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 02:25:06 GMT
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 22:02:51 -0400, Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Mike Stump wrote:
>> Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Mr Stumped proves once again that he can't tell the difference
>>> between a tool and a person. (Hint: animates can be enslaved, tools
>>> -- inanimates -- cannot.)
>> Prove it. The dictionary you cited didn't restrict the term slavery
>> to only applying to humans or animates, it merely said:
>
>Actually, you're the one making the extraordinary claim, Stump. Convince
>the world that code can be enslaved, or that by the alleged enslavement of
>code, developers are thereby enslaved.
You are arbitrarily redefining the argument.
The liberty that the GPL is presumed to garauntee is for users
in general not merely "developers". The vendorlock imposed by
Win32, WinSock embrace & extend, msvc++ extensions, msMosiac++
plugins and msoffice formats are all excellent examples of
entrapment through obscurity.
>
>(Hint: you can't. The language doesn't support meaningful sentences
>that attempt to do so, which is different than supporting sentences
>that pretend to do so. Look at Jabberwocky for a good example of what
>might be grammatically correct but is still nonsensical -- like your
>claim that software [an inanimate] can be enslaved.)
...you mean like "free country"?
--
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.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Adam Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: License?
Date: 11 Jul 2000 02:27:37 GMT
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you have one of the single CD distros of Red Hat you don't have
> anything to worry about at all. You don't need a license for Linux, the
> GPL covers that. If your Network Manager insists on seeing the license,
> tell him to read the file COPYING (should be somewhere on the CD). This
> file is the GPL (GNU Public License) which is the license that covers
> Linux software (for the most part).
And if your NM still doesn't get the point, have him open an anonymous
ftp session to ftp.redhat.com, go to the /pub/redhat/redhat-6.2/iso/
directory, and show him that you could download the entire CD from
RedHat's own server if you wanted to.
--
Adam Smith
Boston University
Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering
"In theory there's no difference between theory and practice, but in
practice there is."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Steve/Mike's New Name And Old Ethics -was- What I've always said: Netcraft
numbers of full of it
Date: 11 Jul 2000 02:34:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
DeadPerson* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:54:26 GMT, Mathias Grimmberger wrote:
>>Sorry. I don't understand. Why do only the Fortune 500 matter to the
>>WWW? What has size to do with relevance anyway?
>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
Then perhaps DeadPerson* will explain why he has spent the
last 12 months posting to Usenet many thousands of anti-
Linux lies, which are intended to deceive people into giving
thousands of dollars to Bill Gates, who is already the
richest man in the world. Maybe DeadPerson benefits directly
from the "corporate oligarchy".
* This modified version of Steve/Mike's latest pseudonym is
not a threat, but a description of his moral and intellectual
condition. It's a response to his recent adoption of his
(by my count) 28th false identity -- "deadpenguin". This
name was designed so that every time anyone uses it, they
will repeat and strengthen the lie that he's telling.
I refuse to do that. The Penguin -- Linux -- is not dead,
but alive and thriving. Steve/Mike's attempts to smear it
are harmful to people (if they believe him), and are there-
fore anti-life.
DeadPerson also publicly wishes for the death of 500,000,000
harmless people:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=590061261
"No wonder they are dying of aids..Good riddence.....and
no loss."
Here are the 28 fake names he's used to deceive people into
thinking that many users are unhappy with Linux, when actually
it's only him:
Steve/Mike/Heather/Simon/teknite/keymaster/keys88/Sewer Rat/
"S"/Sponge/Sarek/piddy/McSwain/pickle_pete/Ishmeal_hafizi/
Syphon/Proculous/Tiberious/Amy/Jerry_Butler/Wobbles/wazzoo/
"Tim Palmer"/BklynBoy/susie_wong/"leg log"/bison/deadpenguin/
etc.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Rottengatter)
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 21:47:31 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <0rx85.473$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Shock Boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> As for advanced technology, the Net is not fully contained in the houses
>> of well-to-do US citizens. There are plenty of places with slow lines,
>> slow modems, and per minute charges.
>
> While that may be true, the same applies in many other area's.
>
> Not everyone owns a car.. some use a slower bicycle.. shall we all stop using cars?
>Or limit our speed to 20mph?
>
> Not everyone owns a television set.. shall we demand only radio broadcasts?
Stupid comparison. They do not interfere the same way.
> Personally, the minimum standard that we should even care about is a 56K,
Nah. Here in Germany, number of ISDN installations is about to overtake analog
lines pretty soon. ISDN offers 128 kBit/s, so why to care for anything slower.
Noticed ? I wonīt care about *you* anymore. How does that feel ? Got the lesson ?
> unlimited time for $19.95/month.
Oh, thatīs only true for a (rather large) number of US citizens. So hardly
half a billion people. From your narrowminded point of view, thatīs probably
the world.
> If someone has a
> slower/more expensive connection.. than a longer usenet post is the least
> of their worries.
Donīt say things like that until *you* experienced it.
Cheers Peter
PS.: You definitely want to learn how to quote
--
=====================================================================
Dr. Peter Rottengatter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.rottengatter.de
=====================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: 11 Jul 2000 02:54:18 GMT
Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
>> I don't believe AIX has been ported to the AS/400, has it?
>> [I might be uninformed...who knows]
>>
>
> No, I don't think AIX has been ported to AS/400, but you could run Linux.
> Actually, I'm not sure what the current status of Linux is for AS/400, but
> IBM has committed to get it working.
>
It wouldnt be that difficult, methinks, but why not just buy a used powermac
and run it on that? I never had a machine as stable as my old 604 180
running linuxppc.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
