Linux-Advocacy Digest #624, Volume #27 Wed, 12 Jul 00 17:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why use Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why use Linux? ("1$Worth")
Save the Penquins [URGENT] (Nico Coetzee)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? ("1$Worth")
Re: Why use Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Bob Hauck)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Why use Linux? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Help with printer (Mig)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:41:08 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >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.
>
> At work. In any case it was an experimental web server, and it's not
being
> used. But, it's still running after over a month.
A webserver that is *NOT being used that stays up for a MONTH? Hardly
worth talking about! Much less bragging about! Come cack when you have
some numbers that prove that it will stay up under *some* stress.
>
> >Pete say here he has a file server running 98 SE
> >http://x73.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=644936174
>
> At work, yep.
>
> >But he says here he has a Samba server running Linux
> >http://x63.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=643200940
>
> At home, yep.
>
> >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.
>
> At home, the server is just keeping files for me. At work for the rest
of
> the group.
>
> You can be as sarcastic as you like - it don't make any difference. I
have
> a file server/web server at work and it's been running since the 17th
May.
> That's over a month now.
>
> Pete
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "1$Worth" <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 08:49:52 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "1$worth" <"1$worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net> wrote:
> > See, Trolls like Pete avoid the questions. I just don't believe
> anything
> > he says.
> > It is clear that he either has had a very good (unusual) Win32
> > experience or he
> > is telling us tails. Former may be true, but as I said before, a
> > computer just
> > sitting there doing file serving just should NOT crash. Linux doesn't,
> > even WinNT
> > is a happy bunny for longer, but Win9x is simply not designed to be
> > reliable and those
> > who state that it is are by definition suspicious.
>
> Rubbish! The web server running on the machine indicates it was started
> on the 17th May.
>
> The comment that Windows 98 crashes after a month I found ludicrous,
> and sure enough, I have a system nearby that's been up and running over
> a month now.
If you had an ounce of sense and knowledge about your beloved platform
you would know to which known bug I am referring (and which version of
9x). As you don't, I can only assume that you simply like mouthing off
about things you do not understand. Perhaps you should concentrate on
your gameboy tetris score rather than messing around with real
computers. Even worse, you are from the UK. That's all we need to get a
reputation: larger louts and FUDsters. I guess you can consider this a
flame as I just find your attitude towards Linux repulsive. It's as if
you expect Linux = Win32 and if it does not meet this that it is
inferior. Go read a book on OS design, then have a look at Win9x
architecture and tell me with a straight face that it is "good" for
reliable computing. If it's so damn reliable then why was there a need
for NT? Why did so many companies jump at NT? Aye? Aye Mr. Troll? I hope
you sleep well under your bridge at night 'cos you don't seem to be
winning friends and influencing people here. And another thing.... if
you don't like Linux so much then why don't you get down from your M$
marketing BS high horse (M$ who only recently discovered the Internet
and got sued by their own Government) and produce some code for the
community??? That's the point - thats why it's nice and thats why we
like it (and yes - have a look at my headers, I use BOTH win and Linux,
so for me it is Win-Win (so to speak) ). (+1 to killfile).
Ahhhhh, now I feel better.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:02:15 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Save the Penquins [URGENT]
I don't know how many of you follow South African news, but we had a big
oil spill and nearly 65000 penguins are in serious danger.
Sites:
* http://www.5fm.co.za/5fmnew/
* http://www.uct.ac.za/depts/stats/adu/oilspill/index.htm
* http://www.uct.ac.za/depts/stats/adu/oilspill/sapmap.htm
The last site is tracking three penguins via satelite - interesting. If
you want to donate money, please visit the first site and get the
details there. The bank managing the funds:
* https://www.fnb.co.za/secured/index.asp
Thanx for all your support.
Nico.
--
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 15:56:42 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 10 Jul 2000
[...]
>In the RIPEM case, RMS asserted that:
>
> /* calculates 1+1*/
> #include "gmp.h"
> main()
> {
> MP_INT a;
> mpz_init_ui(&a,1);
> mpz_add_ui(&a,&a,1);
> }
>
>constituted a derived work of the gmp library, even though it
>only uses the library interface.
I would assume that this is because this code only functions correctly
with the gmp library. Is this correct?
>This view has not been upheld in court, but who can afford
>even the threat of a lawsuit?
Whether people who are right can be cowed into acquiescing by the
daunting challenge of slimey lawyers and their "common knowledge" of
people getting screwed in court is a separate issue. One cannot hold
only the FSF's feet to that fire. In point of fact, RIPEM seems to have
been able to afford the threat of a lawsuit, and were able to prove
(could someone explain how?) that their software was not, in fact,
derived from gmp.
>The result was that someone
>had to go to the trouble of duplicating the library in
>'really free' as opposed to 'FSF-free' code.
Oh, so it sounds like RIPEM lost. But most of what I've overheard about
the case (very very little but vague, veiled references) seem to use the
case to point out the error in the FSF's position. Is this merely
because they disagreed with the result, or has someone examined the
actual arguments?
>A copy of
>the fgmp man page with some comments by the author can
>be found here:
> http://www.ptf.com/ptf/products/UNIX/current/0264.0.html
Exactly what I was about to ask for; a presentation from the RIPEM
perspective. Hold on while I read it.....
I think this sums it up (from the above url):
RMS has also told me that if there were another implementation with the
same API but different licensing terms, then source code like that above
would not be covered by the GPL (and that the hooks for GMP into RIPEM
would not be covered by the GPL).
The *only* library which even *implemented* the functions, that made
them available, that created them, is GPL. Yes, that means that every
piece of software that uses those functions calls is, indeed, in law and
fact, a derivative work.
I guess that must seem REALLY counter-intuitive to most software
developers. But, you know, I'll be most, if not practically ALL,
commercial software developers are completely unaware that their work is
valuable because it is a trade secret, not because it is intellectual
property.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "1$Worth" <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net>
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 08:58:27 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> A WHOLE bunch of typos at the Linux documentation project!
>
> From http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Firewall-HOWTO-5.html
>
> "The bilt in Linux firewall..."
>
> "...new firewall utility with more feachers"
>
> How is this for an incomplete sentence including typos!
>
> http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Firewall-HOWTO-6.html
>
> "Because most distributions don't dome with a kernel usefull to your
> perpose."
>
> Or this;
>
> "You need to turning off any unneeded services."
>
> "This script will count ever packet"
>
> And the printed book "Running Linux" (3rd Edition mind you) has typos..
>
> Check page 47, "If this is the cas, it should be explicity stated on
> the package"
>
> --- I mean really,, what a bunch of retards! You all spent so much time
> geeking that you never acquired spelling and grammar skills? Well..
> rest my case, the real world will ever take Linux seriously.
Soory if we canyt spelkl, wer can't affortd spell chekers you kow.
Rather than calling every Linux user a bunch of retards why don't you
politely point out the errors to the above sources rather than appearing
to be incapable of human compassion and without the possession of a
developed natural neural net. Back under your bridge you naughty boy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:45:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (TNT) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >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.
>
> It's running a web server, the file server.
Yeah but how much USAGE are they getting??? A home file server? A test
webserver that no one useses? BIG DEAL! An unused computer that stays up
is no big trick. Now, when you can show LOAD over time...
>
> Pete
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:54:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee) wrote in <396C7830.5582111
> @willinet.net>:
>
> >Pete, I think you've missed this point. I will answer here rather
than
> >watch this turn into the typical shouting match (which will probably
> >happen anyway). He isn't talking about different desktop
environments,
> >he is talking about different desktops within the same environment.
In
> >KDE or GNOME or Enlightenment or most other desktop environments,
there
> >is a way to set up multiple "virtual" desktops. This is what he is
> >talking about. You can switch between your 4 or 6 or 8 or *however
many
> >you've picked* desktops in real time. You have one desktop filled up
> >and want a clean one to start something else, click on desktop two
and
> >start whatever you want there. It is something that is indespensible
> >once you get used to it. I typically have netscape up on desktop
one,
> >GIMP up on desktop two, XEmacs on desktop 3, and desktop four
circulates
> >between an office suite (StarOffice or Corel) and whatever other
thing I
> >may need. It's an extremely useful feature.
>
> Oh I thought we were talking about Gnome, KDE, FVWM, TWM etc.
>
> I didn't think we were talking about virtual desktops. I think there
is one
> (or there was one) for Windows. I've tried them, but don't really find
much
> use.
But other people do! Isn't choice wonderful?
>
> >In KDE and GNOME this feature is accessible from the "Control Center"
> >application (much like Windows control panel) that allows you to
change
> >options. You can set up as many or as few desktops as you want.
Most
> >Windows users never even realize what those extra desktops are, if
they
> >ever even realize they are there at all. They are quite useful. If
you
> >want a blank desktop at any moment you don't have to minimize
everything
> >to get there, just move to another unused desktop and there you go.
> >Some people never get the hange of it, others never want to, but if
you
> >do get used to it you really miss it when you have to use an OS that
> >doesn't have it.
>
> Interesting that Windows has the concept of desktop and screen, and
they're
> not always the same. Does Linux support multi-head? Having two screens
> seems a lot more useful than using virtual ones.
Yes, sure does.
>
> >If I'm mistaken on your interpretation of what he was talking about,
> >forgive me. Just trying to enlighten what could have turned into a
big
> >useless fight.
>
> If I have misunderstood, then I humbly apologise.
>
> Pete
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 20:09:18 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 10:17:45 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This feature of virtual desktops have been in X Windows since before Windows
>3.0 came out of Redmond.
>I am unaware of any tools that can do this for any of today's versions
>of Microsoft Windows with any video card without special support from
>the driver.
I use multiDesk under NT4SP5. It does not seem to care what video
driver you use. OTOH, I do not know if it works on W2K.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:57:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Kulkis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >With a track record like that, why should anybody spend the money
> >for a company which is well-known for not admitting that their
> >software is bug-infested crap?
>
> That's an interesting question you raise. Can you explain the meteoric
rise
> of Windows, pushing everything else out and taking over 90% of the
desktop
> market? And this with "bug-infested crap" as you put it.
>
> Pete
Please read the finding in the DOJ vs Microsoft case.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 20:10:23 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:21:26 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Does Linux support multi-head?
Yes.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
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: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 15:07:09 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> But is the "problem" fixed? Not to my thinking. The problem is still
> there, because it is a flaw in the software. It was not "improper
> administration", nor "careless users", nor "a network problem". It was
> Windows doing what Windows does: proving itself to be an unreliable
> piece of software. That isn't of course, Nathan's issue, and my
> repeatedly deriving it is no doubt why he is convinced I don't
> understand his real issue. But I guess then the real issue is whether
> an administrator that doesn't know that Windows can screw itself up very
> easily with no help from humans doing so accidentally can truly consider
> himself competent in this regard.
>
> Maybe its just a difference of perspective, but I think my perspective
> is a larger one. I will not draw lines and say "well, that's someone
> else's screw-up". Whether it be fault management (failure
> response/troubleshooting) or configuration management (administration),
> or any other professional implementation area, with any kind of
> computer, the issues are often more extensive than the front-line
> person, be they user or administrator, is often willing to accept.
>
> [...]
>
These last two paragraphs are really starting to get under my skin.
What is the deal here. You seem to have yourself convinced that I said
you can totally eliminate Windows crashing altogether if you are
competent. I said you can make it so it doesn't crash *a lot*. At no
point did I say you can keep Windows perfect. I too have seen Windows
destroy itself for no apparent reason. I am not disputing that fact at
all. I am just saying (again) that it is possible to minimize some of
this through competence. If you are so convinced that you are the only
person that truly understands how completely futile it is to fight
Windows, then I suggest you seek some mental help. You seem to have
this roadblock up that says "I will only hear what goes against me." and
you don't let anything through that agrees with your position.
In my original post to this thread I worded something incorrectly, you
took it one step further and then just keep jumping on it. Now you are
attacking my abilities as a trouble shooter because of it. It's a
rather large leap. I have worked with Windows a lot more than I ever
wanted to and can actually trouble shoot it some. But I can trouble
shoot Unix much better because I know whatever fix I put in is going to
stay in.
Now, in your final paragraph you are also saying that I am trying to
blame someone else for my problems. Where the hell does that come
from? I said that you can minimize problems with administrators that
know what they are doing. I didn't anywhere say that I am going to
blame all administrators when something goes wrong. I have known some
admins that know what they are doing. When Windows does something
stupid on their network, I am more likely to look at the idiotic Windows
OS than the admin. But on a moron's network, when machines are crashing
daily and all they can do is point and drewl, I'm probably going to say
the admin needs to know a little more before they are competent. I have
never just "drawn a line and said that's someone elses screw-up" because
anywhere I worked previously to this it wouldn't have mattered. Even if
it was someone elses screw up it was my job to fix it.
You have come at this from every possible direction. You have even made
things up to attack just to make me look like a bigger idiot. Fine, go
ahead, make up so more shit. Why do you insist on pursuing this? I
have admitted where I feel I made a mistake and you come back with, *but
no, you are mistaken* over and over again. Now you make up shit that I
didn't even say and tell me I'm trying to blame someone else for my
problems. God dude, I don't even know what to think about this.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 20:17:12 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:08:18 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The comment that Windows 98 crashes after a month I found ludicrous,
MS admitted to such a bug in Win95. Something about the system timer
rolling over (I think it was 45 or 49 days though, not "a month"). I
would hope that it was fixed in Win98.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 15:16:26 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 11 Jul 2000
> [...]
>>The perl approach seems to be the only way to permit the GPL
>>to have its way with your code and still avoid the inherent
>>restrictions. Perl is released under two licenses and it
>>is apparently left as an exercise for the distributor to
>>determine which one applies at any particular time. It is
>>just sad that the GPL forces such contortions on people who
>>really want their work to be usable in any context.
>That doesn't really sound very convoluted to me.
I think it is it is convoluted when you don't want to restrict the
software at all and you have to apply two opposing licenses
to avoid restrictions.
>All commercial
>software is distributed with two different licenses, in much the same
>way you describe. They're called "developer license" or "OEM license"
>and "End User License Agreements", respectively.
But the purpose of applying these licenses is to apply certain
restrictions - in perl's case it is to avoid them.
>So what are the particulars of the Perl licenses? I'm not familiar with
>it (the licenses, I am familiar with Perl).
One is the stock GPL, the other is called the 'Artistic' license
which allows just about anything except redistributing modifications
without identifying the changed copy as being modified. Embedding
in commercial products is also explicitly permitted. This scheme
allows it to be combined with GPL'd code without being trapped
by it.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:18:03 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Stefaan A Eeckels from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10 Jul 2000
>In article <8k9ecm$cro$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> I mostly agree with Max, err at least I think so, but I wouldn't wish
>> the above sentence on anyone. The only place I disagree with him is
>> where he calls John a troll. I think John's point is legitimate, on
>> topic, and not a deliberate lie just to goad people. I wouldn't
>> classify it as trolling.
>
>But, as I have argued before, he'd have a better chance to convince
>people if he didn't insist on his personal definition of "free".
You don't convince people by changing your opinions to match theirs;
that's called being convinced. I don't "insist" on my personal
definition of "free"; I merely use my personal definition of free. But
you have, indeed, given me no reason to believe it is not an accurate,
consistent, and practical use of the word 'free', despite the fact that
you have presented many possible meanings of the term free, none of
which are the one I used, which would be incorrectly applied in that
context.
>The consensus is pretty much that the GPL, being a license, does
>limit certain uses of GPLed code.
The consensus is that this doesn't prevent, but, indeed, is mandated by,
the fact that GPL software is free.
>It also seems that "freedom" hardly ever means "absolute freedom",
>and selecting a particular issue as removing "freedom" has to be
>a personal choice, and a valid one too.
If it is a personal choice, then it is not for you to say that mine is
invalid.
>Given the additional (cost) ambiguity the word "free" carries, and
>the observation that most people think of gratis software when free
>software is mentioned, I really don't think the issue (calling GPLed
>software "free") is worth all the electrons.
But you continue to argue that GPL software shouldn't be called free.
Honest debate is always worth the electrons to me, as is occasionally
playing with trolls for entertainment and instructive reasons. You must
also think it worth the electrons to dispute that GPL software is free,
and I think it is because it makes you uneasy about the software
industry and your perception of your chosen field. Not that calling GPL
software free shows them in a bad light, but merely that they don't
match your preconceptions, so you get defensive, even angry, when those
preconceptions are shown to be false. Commercial software developers
are not creating intellectual property; they are creating trade secrets.
Their employer only copyrights the software to dupe the end-user into
believing they need to agree to a license and to provide protections
which, by law, trade secrets aren't supposed to have. I am sorry if
this seems a personal insult to anyone who makes their living writing
software which is commercially licensed, but the fact remains that it is
absolutely true, in the most accurate, consistent, and practical sense
possible.
>I will continue to assume that those who choose to use GPLed software
>do so with full knowledge of the costs and benefits. Those who use
>GPLed software without bothering to find out if it is compatible with
>their expectations don't warrant any consideration.
There you go. Thanks for your time. Glad it helped.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Help with printer
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:20:35 +0200
Hello
Just bougth myself a printer but cant get it to work.
The problem seems to be that the parallel port is not detected .
No problem with the port or printer since i prints OK from Windows.
Have an idea?
Cheers
BTW i use RH 6.5 Workstation
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:20:55 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Hyman Rosen from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 10 Jul 2000 16:38:42
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>> The big problem with the two hour free parking analogy is that "two hour
>> free parking" is generally understood to refer to freedom of cost, not to
>> being libre. I think even the most vocal GPL detractors would agree that GPL
>> software can usually be obtained free of cost.
>
>Free parking is not an analogy for free software. Free parking is an
>example of a phrase where the word free is used despite the fact that
>the resource is offered under heavy restrictions. It illustrates that
>the presence of such restrictions does not disqualify free from common
>usage.
Well presented and well rebuked. Just wanted to express my thanks to
both. I botched the free parking example in verbal discussion only
yesterday, for this very reason. I had forgotten that it wasn't an
analogy of free software, but an illustration of "free" anything.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
