Linux-Advocacy Digest #593, Volume #27 Tue, 11 Jul 00 13:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Windows98 (Paul Colclough)
Re: A cute linux song
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Certifications on the internet by Brainbench? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Where did all my windows go? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 11 Jul 2000 11:12:42 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
>>>The GPL would only prevent it being used in one single circumstance:
>>>profiteering.
>>
>>The GPL prevents code from being combined with any non-GPL'd code
>>and has nothing to do with profiteering. That is, just
>>about everywhere except for those who share the need to impose
>>restrictions.
>
>Imposing the restriction that you impose no restrictions on others that
>you are not having imposed on you, is not a restriction. It is the
>definition of freedom.
No, this is the definition of control. And worse, it tries to
apply itself to everything it touches, not just the components
where control is justified.
>>>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.
>>
>>Huh? I'm trying to make a case for reference code without
>>restrictions that prevent it from being used. If the
>>original BSD TCP/IP code had been so restricted I don't
>>think the internet as we know it, with correctly interoperating
>>components from many vendors, would exist.
>
>Yes, I mischaracterized your argument. My apologies. I have just
>posted some comments along the same lines; in the historical time period
>when TCP/IP (or Kerberos) software was developed, it would have been
>counter-productive to GPL the reference implementation, as it would be
>today. GPLing reference implementations is not a good idea, I agree.
>They should be public domain.
Reference implementations are just a case that make the problem
of restrictions that force unnecessary reimplementation more
obvious. Such restrictions should never be necessary on code
claiming to be free.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 11:13:11 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Am I supposed to deny that
> > happened at all just to support my personal belief that Linux is
> > better? Well, I won't. I don't lie just to serve my views up.
> > I tell the truth. If it hurts that bad, don't read it.
> >
>
> Shall we form the "I Like Linux, but work with Microsoft" club?
>
> I think we are already both members of "stick to your guns, even
> if they are pointed at you" club.
>
> The truth can be very annoying at times.
>
> My Opinion,
> David Petticord
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Well, at the moment I would have to say, I like Linux but used to work
with Microsoft club. I haven't had to use much in the way of MS
software (two specialized programs, one from a bank one called 20/20 for
cabinet design) in my latest job. Luckily, I'm also the network/systems
administrator here so I don't have to worry about the IT manager (also
me) saying "dump Linux and go to MS".
But I won't lie about MS products just to make Linux look good. I
haven't seen too many systems running Windows that are *stable*, but it
has happened occassionally.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
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: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 12:16:03 -0400
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> Care to name it (them)? And, so what, so for 5 of the last 6 years you
EDS
General Motors
Ford Motor Company
Kmart Corporation.
> worked in A company that's a fortune 50 company and it doesn't use NT - so
> what? Check yourself, do your own netcraft What is it running tests and see
> who's lying/wrong? I mean, every company I've worked at for the last 8 years
> runs NT without exception - guess using your logic that means I should
i.e. companies who's management isn't smart enough to see through
Microsoft's lies.
Which is better:
a) server that run MULTIPLE functions and can stay up for a year or more
b) a server that can only do ONE thing (mail, webserving, file serving)
and even then crashes every 45 days or less.
> conclude that NONE of them puts webservers on free (you get what you pay
> for) apache? silly...
>
> only 5/6 years? A fortune 50 and a stock brokerage? Is this supposed to
> impress me? I've installed at over 40 of the fortune 500 - ever single one
> NT 4 and now W2K. We push the unix boxes out faster than we can deliver new
> ones (fortunately it takes fewer new W2K boxes to replace the unix clunkers)
Obvious lying here.
fewere W2K boxes to replace equivalent functionality of Unix boxes.
What are you pushing out...10-year old machines with 800M drives?
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colclough)
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: 11 Jul 2000 15:23:51 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Cancio) wrote in
<LYl35.1231$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Hi everyone. First of all to avoid void flames, I work as GNU/Linux
>and Solaris administration, and do not find difficult any of them. I can
>manage to do whatever I want be it from GNU/Linux, Solaris, Windows
>NT, Windows 98, and the so ... (I've been playing around with computers
>since CP/M 2.2, and I like them and I think I understand them ...). This
>said, I find that as home OS, Windows 98 is the TODAY option for almost
>everyone. Sure it freezes, sure registry is awful, sure it is expensive,
I'd have to agree. Sure I can do some of the things I do under Windows under
Linux, but they are easier to do under Windows. Others (like specialised
software packages) are not available under Linux so I am forced into Windows.
I like Linux, but every OS has it's place, I use Linux as a gateway machine at
home and a mail/web/proxy/gateway machine at work and it works very well, but I
could not use it on it's own as my only OS.
One thing that annoys me in Linux is where programs install themselves - some
go in /usr/local/bin, other go in /usr/sbin, others are in /usr/local/share,
etc, etc. There doesn't seem to be much difference between the actual operating
system components and accessories needed to run a decent desktop (eg. XFree86,
KDE/Gnome/or whatever window manager) and other programs you install. You don't
see many Windows programs installing themselves into c:\windows\system now do
you? They all install neatly into c:\program files\ and you can pretty much
find an installed program living in there in some sub-directory. Trying to find
a Linux equivalent normally means searching the entire disk, but only if you
know exactly what your looking for. I've had countless times where I've
installed several gigabytes of a Linux distribution (Eg. Suse DVD) and then
failed to find about 80% of the installed programs due to them being mixed in
with several hundred other commands.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A cute linux song
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 08:36:07 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I hear someone keeps knocking on the door but there is no one there when I
answer it.
If you have something to say, SAY IT! or amscray.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:24:51 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 10 Jul 2000 15:20:27 -0700 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>Pete. Your posts about how Linux lags behind Windows are amusing to me.
>Here's a little story about how Windows crapped out on me last night,
>and how Linux rescued me. Windows could have never done this.
[snip good anecdote on how Linux saved AG's mail and marriage :-) ]
>There is no way Windows could have done this. First of all, Linux
>would never render a computer unbootable because I reinstalled a
>driver.
I could see Linux actually becoming unbootable because of a
driver reinstall -- but that would take some work. (Besides,
that's what backup kernels and rescue disks are for. :-) )
I do have an odd issue on my own setup, in that my firewall box
(which holds my localnet DNS server -- yeah, I know that's overkill :-) )
will, for some reason, not allow my main box to complete its
reboot on occasion if it's not connected to the Internet (something
hangs, but it's not the kernel). Slightly different issue,
admittedly, and it's probably something stupid which I haven't had
a chance to research -- my main box, which is also a dualboot setup,
has been up for 9 days as I write this, which tells you how often
I actually bother to reboot into Windows -- or Linux, for that matter.
(My firewall box has been up for 57 days. Not quite as reliable
as some, but pretty darned good; it's also dualboot, but why bother?)
>Secondly, Windows would never be able to read an ext2
>partition the way Linux can read FAT32.
Check out fsdext2. It doesn't work horribly well, but it works.
(It may be because my copy is on the old side.)
It runs on Win95, and probably Win98 as well.
>
>So Pete, when you say Linux lags behind Windows, I can't help but
>laugh. Linux is so incredibly versitile that to compare it to a
>toy OS like Win9X is simply ludicrous to me.
Now that I'll agree with. Of course, some of the tools Linux
have are akin to giant blowtorches (dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda
comes to mind -- kids, don't try this at home unless you know
what you're doing :-) ). However, sometimes a giant blowtorch
is quite appropriate, and Linux makes it dead simple to
copy a file tree, or even copy a disk drive block-by-physical-block
(the destination had better be the same size as the source in
that case) without having to dip into Visual Basic, C, or C++.
I've backed up, repartitioned, and restored my Win95 partitions
(I have 3 of them) with no apparent ill effect.
Linux also makes it simple to ensure that your kid doesn't do
anything horribly destructive to the file system using
'rm -rf', 'mv', or running an arbitrary virus-laden program.
(One could even surmise running JumpStart -- an educational program --
using WinE. I haven't tried it; one of these days I should.
But even if the program were to crash and burn, it would neither
take X with it, nor Linux -- although it might require a 'kill -9';
Netscape's Java, for example, doesn't like me. :-/ )
>Perhaps Windows is
>better for you, as it is for many people. But when you claim that
>Linux is somehow inferior to Windows, be aware that you are referring
>to yourself only. There are very few computer-literate people who
>would agree with you.
I for one would consider Linux different, rather than inferior.
But I also would consider that a proper comparison would be done
between Linux and Windows NT (or Windows 2000), and even then
there are deficiencies on the Windows side. Of course, there
are deficiencies on the Linux side too, mostly in documentation
(I don't like the info versus man versus /usr/doc mess).
Still, it's got some for its internals -- which is more than what I
can say about Windows -- although people like Andrew Schullman
make a good analysis of what is essentially a "black box", and
efforts such as WinE are throwing some light on various issues that
presumably bedevil Windows developers from time to time.
And yes, beauty/utility/usefulness can be in the eye of the beholder.
I would urge Pete G. to check out Linux, not to disparage it.
(I might consider checking out Win2K, but I'll admit I'm not sure
I need it -- it's WinNT-based, not Win95 -- nor do I really want to
spend the money thereon. Maybe if I get a new 'puter...)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- I'd rather have it run Linux anyway...
... maybe a G4 "supercomputer"? :-9
Or a multiprocessor Pentium or Alpha?
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Certifications on the internet by Brainbench?
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 12:25:48 -0400
mmm007 wrote:
>
> A friend of mine just took the Linux Administrator certification exam by
> Brainbench. She said it was really hard. have any of your taken these
> exams?
Yeah, I took the same exam.
> What do you think of them?
I thoguht it was too easy.
I sent them a lettera and suggested that they add some essay
questions, or at least some "here is the scenario, what is the
best strategy for project implementation/troubleshooting/whatever
is appropriate for the scenario"
> I'd rather not take it unless it is worthwhile.
It's definitely worthwhile.
--
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: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:15:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >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.
>
> Please explain why a license cannot be used as a tool for controlling
> the submission to the dominating influence of proprietary software
> that a proprietary license would have upon otherwise freer software.
Please explain what that means, and what is the connection between that
and slavery.
If you mean that somehow "free software" is being enslaved by some
other software, IMHO you need to stop antropomorphizing.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:23:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10 Jul 200
> >> It is not "free" in that it dissallows others to restrict
> >> the freedoms that they themselves have exploited. That is
> >> liberty versus anarchy that devolves into despotism.
> >
> >It disallows that, and it also disallows much else.
> >For example, some say it disallows combining code under the GPL with
> >original code under other licenses.
>
> They would be factually incorrect. There are reasons to decide not to
> combine GPL code with code under other licenses, but the GPL does not
in
> any way disallow it. In fact, it makes explicit allowances for it,
> although these may not be enough to convince some to decide to combine
> GPL and non-GPL code.
Well, go tell that to Debian legal. They specifically say that original
Qt code can not be combined with GPL code, and they say it's because of
the GPL.
I do not believe that to be true, but they do. That's why I said "some
say".
> >That is another form of despotism.
>
> Your statement is another form of dishonesty.
Well, I was not stating my opinion, but other's, in particular,
Debian's.
> >> [deletia]
> >>
> >> You support developers that trade security for a minor bit of
> >> convenience so your motivation to attack the GPL is quite clear.
> >
> >I have no idea what you are talking about.
> >And I am hardly attacking the GPL. You don't see me saying "the GPL
> >should be forbidden", do you?
>
> Calling something despotism is not an attack?
What I said is that if, as some say, the GPL forbids combining GPL
code with other original code under other licenses, then it would be
despotism. Since you apparently say that is not forbidden (so do I),
then you and I say it's not despotism.
Perhaps I should have said "that would be another form of despotism".
> Both of these statements
> (all three sentences, in fact) seem disingenuous on casual reading.
I have a strong feeling you didn't understand what I wrote at all.
Probably my fault.
Anyway, jedi apparently believes the BSD license will evolve into
despotism. I think that's a more interesting attack than mine.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:27:56 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:25:37 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> (1) Your manner is completely obnoxious. Try to work on it. Either
that
> or your keyboard is broken.
To bad.
>
> (2) Slice and dice the words any way you want, but if the best
available
> desktops for Linux have bugs, it is a usability problem for Linux.
> Sure, KDE bugs are not kernel bugs, but they are *Linux* usability
> issues. Why ? Because it's important that Linux has at least the best
> few desktops ( ie the ones that the distributors are going to use )
> are usable.
All software has bugs. Even W2K. Your point????
>
> --
> Donovan
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:31:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels) wrote:
> 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".
I just saw fit that if you gonna call people "religious", we all
keep in mind who got the religion bug ;-)
> 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.
Oh, but they only accept that when those licenses match their DEFINITION
of "free as in free speech". RMS and the FSF are adamant in refusing
others the right to have a different one regarding software, and RMS
in particular will go to great lengths (say, interrupting you every time
you say the word free) if you use another one.
> > 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.
Sun Community Source License. And "making the grade" is, as many have
said, a judgement of value. I was just reminding that if someone is
religious, it's not precisely Mr. Dyson here ;-)
> >> 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.
So, basically, you are saying that it is not dishonest, or unreasonable,
to call such software free? Then the term "free" lacks any meaning!
A label that is so inclusive as to allow "reasonably" everything to
be labeled, is useless.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
