Linux-Advocacy Digest #618, Volume #27 Wed, 12 Jul 00 13:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Why use Linux? (Perry Pip)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause
Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John S. Dyson)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Spider)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:35:45 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 01:52:34 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Quoting John S. Dyson from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 11 Jul 2000 10:48:15
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>
>>> You describe the GPV zealot's utopia. To me, it's a nightmare world with
>>> poverty and misery for millions of people, and I want no part of it.
>>>
>>Remember, that you are arguing mostly with zealots who are already set
>>up to be 'successful' in the miseryworld of a GPL universe :-).
...not at all.
Some of us merely realize that the current software industry is
rather decadent and needs to be knocked out of it's current state
for it's own good. Forcing end users to pay for the same software
over and over every year simply isn't productive. Neither is allowing
too few people to control the interop standards for their own
selfish interests.
>
>You bet your ass, buckaroo. I'm gonna be SWIMMIN' in GRAVY. Woo-hoo!!!
Besides "dont modify me or else you will have to release your
changes" does not necessarily conflict with the old model of
software development and marketing.
Not everyone that likes Free Software or will defend the semantics
of it's political rhetoric believe in any sort of "all GPL Utopia".
To claim so is simply weak rhetoric meant to distract from the
actual argument.
[deletia]
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:30:47 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:07:19 GMT,
TNT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:08:18 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote
>in <8khn39$con$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "1$worth" <"1$worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net> wrote:
>>Rubbish! The web server running on the machine indicates it was started
>>on the 17th May.
>
>Web server on a Win98 machine?!? And almost never crash for the last one and
>a half year?? That should be a world record!?!
>
>>The comment that Windows 98 crashes after a month I found ludicrous,
>
>So did I, 'cause I've never seen or heard from a reliable source that Win98
>machine can stay up up to a month. It always crashes long before that. Of
>course, I only count working ones, not ones just sit there and do nothing.
Well Pete has said in several posts he pays per minute charges to
access the net. So it's clear his web server is sitting there doing
nothing.
>>and sure enough, I have a system nearby that's been up and running over
>>a month now.
>
>Which one is that? The "file server" or the "web server" one? Please be
>consistent with what you say, if you want somebody to believe you.
Pete say here he has a file server running 98 SE
http://x73.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=644936174
But he says here he has a Samba server running Linux
http://x63.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=643200940
And yet, all of his emphasis has been on home use, i.e. voodoo 5 card
for games, HP scanner, etc. etc. So who are all these servers
serving?? His children?? Poor kids.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:26:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Tue, 11 Jul 2000
> [...]
> >> >You know, MS is not in it for the computer theory implications.
> >>
> >> They ain't in it for the benefit to the consumer, either.
> >
> >Of course not. You say it like they should be!
> >MS is in it to make money.
> >Red Hat is in it to make money.
> >Conectiva (my employer) is in it to make money.
> >The FSF is in it for politics.
>
> Why do people seem to have a tendency to repeat this over and over?
> Don't they realize that is most of the reason why it is true?
[snip]
I know my employer is in it to make money because they told me so ;-)
At least here, you create a legal entity, a legal persona. They can be
of two types.
a)nonprofit
b)for profit
If you are a for profit legal persona, your only goal in the world
is to make a profit. If you are a public company you are legally
FORCED to try to make a profit.
The charter of the company is simply the means by which that company
intends to make that profit.
> >Almost noone is in it for the benefit of the consumer, AFAICS, except
> >for the non-effectual connection "if it helps the consumer=>they will
> >give me money".
>
> I know. Fuck you; every man for themselves. But somehow magically
> non-entities like businesses are going to help consumers, when humans
> are allowed to be greedy selfish assholes. You've got it backwards,
> sonny. "If it helps the consumer=>they will give me money" is a
reason
> to help the consumer. If that is a non-effectual connection, then it
is
> not a connection. That's theft, not business.
It is non-effectual in that it's not IMHO cause-effect. Often a company
does something that helps the consumers, and they don't give the company
money, after all :-)
> Me personally, I'm in it for both. I'm not dishonest enough to say
I'm
> *only* in it for the benefit of the consumer, but to say "almost
no-one
> is in it for the benefit of the consumer" is, quite frankly, so
> astonishingly silly a statement, simply because nobody ever said that
> the benefit to the consumer motivates a business. That isn't the same
> as not being its purpose for being. Businesses exist to produce
> products; commerce exists to serve the consumer, not the business.
I believe you are naïve. Companies produce product to make money.
> Profit is a motivation for businesses, of course, just as making money
> is motivation for the people in those businesses. But if you're
hanging
> around just to collect a paycheck, dude, then I'd recommend suicide.
We
> could use the space you're taking up, and someone who wants to act
like
> a civilized person wants to use it.
Why on earth are you attacking me here? Am I a company? If you honestly
are attacking me like this, all I can say is fuck you. I gave away
enough
time of my life writing free software to bought me a house, which I
don't
have, and working on a university for 1/10th of the pay I'd have in a
company
for many years, as guess what, a service to community.
> Businesses exist to produce goods,
> and profit is the motive we give them to produce them. Exacting
> exorbitant profits isn't business, its profiteering. Great profits
can
> be had as a reward for innovation. But maintaining such great profits
> artificially is unethical and unacceptable behavior for any person or
> corporation in business.
So, the motivation for companies' actions is profit. What else did I
say?
> >BTW: I can say, that for example, some of us KDE people are in it
> >to benefit the consumers, but not even all of us.
>
> Good for all of you, because it makes no difference to me whatsoever
> what your motivations are, as long as you provide benefit to the
> consumer and conduct your business ethically. :-)
Honestly, I was in it for fun. People like you make me doubt it's worth
the trouble.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 00:50:29 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Look at what they have already done. Remember DRI? Remeber the other
> > antitrust actions against them in the past that were ended by out of
court
> > settlements. Settlements that they promptly foud way to circumvent or
just
> > plain ignore.
>
> But will they be able to ignore future settlements?
Only time will tell, If the final action is not final enough, based on their
history, they will try to work their way out of it as soon as they think the
heat is off enough.
Could I have possibly used any more commas in the last sentence?
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 01:08:17 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> >
> > As I have said elsewhere, the history of computer industry has seen many
of
> > these apps ported and reported many times.
>
> And when will they be ported to Linux?
Much of the software that is currently running on Linux now have been ported
from other OS's. True, most of that was from other unixes, but they are
ports none the less. If a program developed under a 8-bit computers ported
across to 8-bit computers then ported to Dos and then to Windows. What
could make you think it could not be ported beyond windows.
Many of the apps that were written for the Mac were ported to Windows and
OS/2 PM. Apps written for Windows have been ported to the Mac. There have
already been ports of 8-bit micros software to unix. There have been ports
of some dos and Windows apps to unix already, some for more than a decade
ago. So what makes you think those apps won't be ported again?
As soon as the pressure that prevents most firm from port beyond Windows is
gone, you many be supprised at the porting rush. I have seen that before as
well. Learn you history and you will have your answers.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:48:45 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 03:01:29 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] () from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Tue, 11
> [...]
>>>>Uh.... suppose the BSD TCP stack was GPL.
>>
>> This is a false strawman.
>>
>> Free Software doesn't have to use the GPL in particular in order
>> to be copylefted. Infact, the vast majority of software of that
>> kind is licenced under the LGPL.
>
>Please explain why the difference is important for those of us who don't
>care what the difference is, if you could. I'd appreciate knowing why
The GPL and the LGPL are conceptually the same licence. However,
the LGPL has a more lenient definition of what a derived work is.
This makes it much easier to use an LGPLed work as some sort of
shared facility. This is usually in the form of a shared library
like winsock.dll or libSDL.so.
>the distinction makes the GPL a false strawman. I think you might be
The GPL isn't the entirety of Free Software. Free Software is
merely another way of refering to the concept of copyleft where
all derivative works are governed by the same exact licence such
that all licencees share the same level of priveledge over the
work and any derivative.
>indicating that the argument following this point was a false straw man
>in that MS "could have" released winsock.dll under the LGPL, even though
>the reference code would be GPL (or would the reference be LGPL, by
If the source to libsockets.so was LGPL, then they could have
taken it and shoehorned it into windows. While still needing
to release the source for their modified library they could
still licence all other components of Windows in any manner
they saw fit.
>nature?) But how would that work, and why doesn't it mean that
>Microsoft would have had to release winsock.dll, at least (and what
>more, which might link to it?) under a copyleft of either type? And is
>there another copyleft lurking about, an NGPL, or something?
[deletia]
Copyleft only covers derivative works. If you modify it and
distribute it, THEN the L/GPL infects that work. RMS actually
objects to the LGPL these days. His agenda really is to infect
all softwar. However, his library still lives on and gets used
despite of his goals simply because not everyone shares them.
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John S. Dyson)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 15:59:40 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <8khul9$i1r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Tue, 11 Jul 2000
>> [...]
>> >AFAIK, you never own a program you license.
>> >And if you are not granted the right to use by the license, none
>> >of those rights you mention exists, right?
>>
>> You don't need permission to run a program just because you don't own
>> it.
>
> Hm? You either have a licensed copy, or someone who has a licensed
> copy lets you use it.
>
> Either way you are granted the permission to use it through the license.
> If the license wouldn't allow you to let others run the program, you
> probably can't.
>
Yep, a license is needed to make a copy (for redistribution.) Therefore,
the copy that is in the possession of the originator has to have been
made under license (or by the license owner.)
All of this is predicated upon the rule that licenses must be followed,
but there is evidence in various discussions that certain terms are
'irrelevent' to certain 'GPL being free' advocates. (Copy of posting
to this group is available upon request.)
John
------------------------------
From: Spider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 09:15:26 -0700
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 07:14:55 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>:)Ah, but here on COLA it is proclaimed that Linux is better than Windows
>:)and is overtaking Windows. I thought I'd take a look and see if Linux
>:)has moved on since last I looked. Yes there are improvements but there
>:)are still areas where work needs to be done.
Then there is me who is looking at changing from Windows to Linux.
With Windows you never know what it's going to do next. There is far
too much opportunity for spyware merchants to take advantage of the OS
in Windows and the user may be unable to find it.
If one stays with open source apps there is no way anyone could write
nefarious code. The whistle would be blown within hours of it's
release.
Every system needs work and Windows is no exception.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:56:13 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 15:50:58 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:14:02 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:46:57 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10 Jul
>2000
>> >> >>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> >> > [...]
>> >> >>> The GPL would only prevent it being used in one single
>> >circumstance:
>> >> >>> profiteering.[...]
>> >> >
>> >> >>Uh.... suppose the BSD TCP stack was GPL.
>> >>
>> >> This is a false strawman.
>> >
>> >No, it's something much simpler, a hypothesis.
>>
>> No, it is an artificially created set of conditions meant
>> to yeild a particular conclusion. It is a post-factum
>> argument meant not to really illustrate anything but to give
>> the false impression of the validity of a particular argument.
>
>Wow.
>
>> If there existed some libsockets package, the most likley
>> copylefted licence to be associated with such a package
>> would specifically be designed to NOT create the artificial
>> situation you describe.
>
>Which is why the GPL would be a very bad license for such software.
>QED.
>
>> >> Free Software doesn't have to use the GPL in particular in order
>> >> to be copylefted. Infact, the vast majority of software of that
>> >> kind is licenced under the LGPL.
>> >
>> >So, what? I am making a hypothetical case.
>>
>> You're a lying dishonest ass, that's so what.
>
>You could make a very compelling case for such a statement if
>you could show where I lied.
You imply some necessity or likelihood of the GPL being used
for a shared library. This is in stark conflict with reality.
You seek to alter the argument by exploiting the potential
ignorance of those involved.
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 03:13:12 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:43:54 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> > >> >I mean, they aren't even the same *CLASS* of bus! SCSI is a
> >> > >> >*PARALLEL* bus, while USB is a *SERIAL* bus (hence the name:
> >> > >> >Universal SERIAL Bus).
> >> > >>
> >> > >> There are USB SCSI adapters. Pretty common on the Mac
> >> > >> marketplace.
> >> > >
> >> > >Where in the original article did he specify he had a converter?
> >> >
> >> > Should he need to?
> >>
> >> Around here, where we get wintrolls insisting that the Mac doesn't
> >> have plug-and-play because it won't magically work with hardware that
> >> doesn't have any Mac drivers, it would probably be a good idea for
> >> people to mention such things.
> >
> >OTOH, we get Mac advocates claiming Windows doesn't have PnP because it
> >doesn't work perfectly with non-PnP hardware.....
>
> ...that it's SPECIFICALLY meant to work with.
It is ? Where is it stated Windows is specifically meant to "plug & play"
with hardware not designed to be PnP ?
> WinDOS is the market leader. Everyone is pandering to them.
> Everyone is targetting their platform for drivers. Yet,
> despite of this there can still be great difficulty.
Because of the developers *not* "pandering" to them.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
