Linux-Advocacy Digest #626, Volume #27 Wed, 12 Jul 00 18:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? (Mathias Grimmberger)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (David Steinberg)
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Why use Linux? ("Bas v.d. Wiel")
Re: C# is a copy of java (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Growing dependence on Java
Re: Why use Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why use Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm
ready! I'm not ready.)) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Advocacy Newsgroup, Right? ("Bas v.d. Wiel")
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 20:54:32 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> A WHOLE bunch of typos at the Linux documentation project!
[M-x snip-typos]
> --- 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.
Quite a good try at trolling. Congrats.
MGri
--
Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Eat flaming death, evil Micro$oft mongrels!
------------------------------
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 17:01:46 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10 Jul 2000
[...]
>> You might pay for distribution, or maintenance, or something, but you're
>> not paying for the license, AFAIK, because open source and for-profit
>> licensing don't make any sense at all together. For-profit licensing
>> requires secret code.
>
>You're not paying for the licence, but you may be paying for the software
>covered by the licence. In essence, the difference is minimal.
I disagree. If the license were a copyright license, you would be
correct; you are buying the software, and the cost to you is both your
money and your acceptance of the license. However, when end-users
purchase software, it is not a copyright license they are agreeing to;
it is a trade secret license. And in those cases, you are buying the
license itself; the benefit of knowing the trade secret is ancillary.
>Strictly speaking, I could write a GPLed program and sell it to you for
>US$1M. Now, you can't stop me from giving it away to someone else, but
>let's say that it's something that I won't have further use for.
>
>You can then turn around and resell it to four people for US$300k
>each.
>
>Again, you can't stop them from giving it away (nor can they stop you
>from later giving it away), but at this point, a total of five people
>have the source code -- and that's *Just Fine*; the terms of the GPL
>have been satisfied, without the source code ever becoming available to
>the general public.
Without restricting decompiling in the end user license, you are
essentially providing the source code when you provide the object code,
legally speaking. There is no distinction in terms of copyright law OR
the handling of trade secrets. I assume, not being personally
experience with such things, that the full and complete source code in
text form is monumentally easier to use than a decompiled version. But
that doesn't stop it from being a representation of the same software,
and potentially providing the same benefits in terms of ability to
identify the operations involved in executing the program.
You can't compare GPL and commercial end-user licensing, at all, ever.
The end-user has a *developers* license, not an end-user license. The
former is based on copyright law, the latter is purely and completely a
trade secrets issue.
--
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: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:00:09 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> 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.
>
To some people they aren't, but to others (like me) we can't live
without them. I think it's partially an aquired taste, and one that's
very hard to get used to if you come from Windows.
> 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.
>
Depending on your X-Server and your hardware, yes. There are options
for up to 4 "heads" on some X-servers, but I believe you have to have a
certain brand of card to make it work. I know right now Penguin
Computing is selling an OEM version of a system with 4-head capability
built in, and will even sell you the four monitors for it (even with
flat panel LCD if you can afford it).
> >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
No prob. I saw the potentional for this to turn into another useless
and pointless "no you idiot" type of debate. I stepped in, hopefully I
haven't ticked anybody off too much.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 21:08:58 GMT
Pete Goodwin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: 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.
And so you will, no doubt, conclude that they are a useless feature, and
that Windows lacks nothing in not offering them "out of the
box." Meanwhile, because of all the useful features Linux lacks, "Linux
lags Windows on the desktop."
Right?
Well, I use them all the time. On my CDE desktop here at work, I've
currently got four virtual desktops (CDE calls them "workspaces").
I've got 9 different windows going on this workspace (mostly xterms and
emacs sessions), all for tasks that are running on a development machine
On another workspace, I've got another set of 14 windows, all running
tasks on a testbed machine. On yet another workspace, I've got a similar
set of 14 windows for a similar testbed, but one that has an older build
on it. And, on the fourth workspace, I've got various "other" stuff
running locally: a couple of Netscape windows, a Frame Maker session, a
Citrix Metaframe session, and so on. My mail client and front panel
"occupy all workspaces," of course, so they are always available. If I
want to see another window on more than one workspace, that is easily
done, too.
I don't know what I would do if I had to juggle all 50-odd windows on a
single little Windows desktop. Yuck.
At home, I use the multiple workspaces available on KDE or WindowMaker
(depending which PC I'm sitting at) in a different way, but I use them all
the time. My use of MS Windows is decreasing, and my frustration with its
pathetic single-desktop limitation is correspondingly increasing.
I would say that virtual desktops are a very important feature, and that,
for me, Windows lack of them is a large impediment to the usability of
the system, However, I have the perspective to realize that my needs and
wants from a desktop system have been shaped by what has been available to
me: what I've used, what I'm used to, what I've learned to use
efficiently. I know others have different experience, different needs,
and different desires from their desktops. There is no way to generalize.
So, I would *not* conclude that Windows lags Linux (and other Unices)
on the desktop.
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:06:52 -0500
Michael Vester wrote:
>
> So, what is Tim Palmer's excuse. He is the champion of the
> Microsoft cause but writes very poorly. I thought Outlook had
> a built in spell checker. Perhaps that is beyond Tim's
> technical abilities.
Don't you remember, TIMMAY (South Park Reference) said that he had
already filled up the spell checker's library with mis-spellings.
Pretty damned intelligent I thought. So he knew how to run the spell
checked, but he apparently didn't like how it corrected him.
Hmm, that seems to happen a lot with people that are convinced of
Windows *utter* superiority. They really don't like to be corrected.
Until they get everyone thinking like them (apparently even the spell
checker spelling like them) they won't stop.
"Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated!"
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "Bas v.d. Wiel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:10:51 GMT
Just my 2 cents:
My Windows 2000 Advanced Server Beta 3 (yes BETA!) has been up and running
for over 200 consecutive days now... and it won't crash at login prompts,
won't saturate its memory or do anything else that slows it down or crashes
it.
The function of the machine? Www-proxy for about 75 PC's.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Date: 12 Jul 2000 16:19:21 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >On 4 Jul 2000 13:03:22 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>You mean you don't like:
>> >>
>> >> char *foo="abcd"; foo[2];
>> >>and
>> >> "abcd"[2];
>> >>and
>> >> 2["abcd"];
>> >>
>> >>to all mean the same thing?
>> >
>> >They don't all mean the same thing. Two of them mean 'c', while
>> >the other means "Crash, burn, and dump core, *right* *now*".
>>
>> A long time ago, back in the K&R days, I fuzzily recall someone
>> who should have known explaining why a C compiler had to
>> treat them all the same. I can't do the argument justice
>> myself, but it involved the steps of turning the string
>> into a pointer, then turning the subscript operation into
>> an addition, and it doesn't matter which direction
>> you add - you end up adding an integer to a pointer either
>> way and the result is the same.
>
>Um... doesn't work on 2["abcd"]
>
>because that translates into 2 + 0x41424344 = *(0x41424346.)
>which ONLY works if "abcd" is stored at 0x41424345 (thats rigth,
>last two digits are 45, not 44)
I think you have forgotten that the compiler will turn the
double quoted string into a pointer to the contents
which are stored in an array somewhere. Which brings
it back to the addition of an integer and pointer just
like the other examples. Has anyone found a compiler
that doesn't return the same character for each
expression?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Growing dependence on Java
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:20:30 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 15:53:51 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>p@p wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nathaniel says...
>>
>> >
>> >Note: StarOffice will run even if you tell it you have no Java installed
>> >on your system. It depends on Java only for Java in it's web browser
>> >app. It doesn't depend on Java to run at all.
>>
>> Why not ship staroffice with the Java run-time in it? Why does the
>> user have to have Java installed on their pc?
>
>For Windows it does come with a Java run-time, but the assumption is if
>you have Linux you already have a Java run-time and it is pointless to
>install another one. (I don't know why they did this as the rest of the
>suite is as bloated as can be, and I think there is a Java run-time on
>the CD if you actually purchase it, just not in the download version.)
...the latest Star Office is 260M. A few more megs for an embedded
Java enviroment is not going to make much difference.
[deletia]
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:28:18 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8kihkh$14j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>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.
It's also a file server if you bother to read!
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:29:50 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8kihru$1eq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>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...
It's a work machine.
It's used as a file server for about half a dozen people. We keep all the
demos of various games on it, along with other tools, utilities etc. As for
usage, it can be sitting there grabbing files from the internet or serving
several people.
Pete
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready!
I'm ready! I'm not ready.))
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 17:30:02 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Steve Mading from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 11 Jul 2000 09:21:01
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Quoting Jonadab the Unsightly One from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Tue, 04
>: [...]
>:>Intuitive? What does that even mean? It means it
>:>does what you'd expect, right? But then we should
>:>call Perl intuitive, and that makes no sense whatever.
>:>(I like Perl, BTW; that isn't my point.)
>
>: <G> Intuitive means, I have it on good authority (my own), "familiar".
>
>Nah - It means easily guessed.
I fail to see how something that is familiar would not be easily
guessed. In fact, the more familiar it is, the easier it is to guess
it, correct? Something can, however, be easy to guess because it is
obvious, not because it is familiar. This well illustrates, now that I
mention it, why "easy" is not anywhere near as appropriate a definition
as "familiar" for the common use of "intuitive".
> Something that is intuative is
>something that, even if you don't already have experience with it,
>you can figure it out pretty easily because your first guess is
>mostly correct.
Based on how familiar you are with like things in your experience. The
first time somebody looks at a keyboard, they can probably easily guess
that they're supposed to push the keys. This doesn't make it intuitive,
because it is not familiar (if you had never seen anyone use a keyboard
in your whole life), even though it is still easily guessed.
> Once you are already familiar with it, the word
>"intuative" isn't really meaningful. It refers to learning curve
>at first exposure.
Which is why the use of the word intuitive equates to familiar, rather
than the actual definition of the word intuitive. I can't change what
the dictionary definition is, and am not pretending to. I'm specifying
what the *concept means*. Whenever someone referring to computers says
something is intuitive, they mean either that it is familiar, or that it
rapidly becomes familiar.
>(In that regard I disagree strongly with MS's
>claims the Windows GUI is intuative - it isn't, it's just that its
>really hard to find someone who hasn't already learned in the basics.)
Yes, that is the focus of my argument, though it applies equally well to
the Macintosh. Neither is intuitive; the Mac is just a lot easier. (It
also relies on the mouse far too much for my convenience, as I am very
familiar with the keyboard and prefer its greater precision for
controlling the computer itself, as opposed to manipulating data inside
an application. But I only say that to point out my objectivity on the
matter of Windows Vs. Mac.)
>Just because training in something is widespread doesn't mean it
>is intuative.[...]
Training has nothing to do with it. People don't learn how to use
computers through training. They become familiar with how to use the
computer in training (forced use, which is all most training amounts to,
as modern software training is entirely lacking in any valid
instructional design). They learn how to use the software the only way
anyone can, because of the unique nature of software; they figure it out
for themselves. With help from books or instruction, possibly. But
*differently than any other subject*, which all combine both skill and
knowledge requirements, software can only be learned by figuring it out
for yourself.
The reason for this (as presented by Dr. C. J. Rhoads in her OPIRT
instructional design method, one of the first training methods developed
exclusively for computer operations, and used exclusively under license
of Computer Educational Services) is that all other subjects may combine
skill and knowledge requirements, but always in massively
disproportionate amounts. History as a subject, for instance, is almost
entirely knowledge, though without some experiential feel for social or
governmental activities, a true grasp of the field is difficult. Auto
mechanics, on the other hand, does require some "book learning", but you
teach this as a skill, not knowledge, using the classic "show, do, help,
test" cycle.
Only computers, and particularly end-user operation of computer
applications, because of the unique nature of software, have an absolute
and almost pure balance of knowledge and skill, optimally. So it is
very helpful to have something there to fill in knowledge while you
develop a skill (read documentation), or have someone there to walk you
through the skills as you try to acquire the knowledge (training
course), but ultimately the educational process is the combination of
both, and that cannot be facilitated as easily or effectively as either
primarily knowledge or primarily skill subjects which make up the
balance of things people need to learn.
That's *why* training in something that is supposedly intuitive is still
wide-spread, and why, ironically, due to supply and demand, training on
those pieces of software which are *least* "intuitive", simple, or easy,
or any combination of the three if you agree they are separate, are
generally impossible to find "training" for.
>From the non-end user (developer) perspective, of course, computers are
more (though by no means exclusively) a knowledge requirement. Thus the
great deal of study which programmers engage in if classical academic
computer scientists by background. It is worth noting that the desire
is to treat programming as more of a skill, as indicated by the number
of "Visual Basic Programming" courses which are available. The low
level of capabilities of the graduates of such programs might certainly
be a result of the environment they are learning (designed to exploit
this issue, in fact, to the betterment of Microsoft's bottom line, not
their customer's capabilities), but can also be considered to be caused
by their lack of knowledge to support the skill they are trying to
learn.
--
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: "Bas v.d. Wiel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocacy Newsgroup, Right?
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:35:53 GMT
<SNIP><BEGIN QUOTE>
I never tried any version of OS/2, but every time i hear someone speak
of it, it sounds very good. Why did it never catch on? Well, i must
admit that i also went to Windows 95 at once. This was mainly because
everybody i knew had Windows 95 too.<END QUOTE>
Because of a classic M$ tactic called FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt). The
big fight was between OS/2 Warp (essentially OS/2 ver. 3) and Windows 95
'gold'. The best example was M$ versus DR-DOS. DR-DOS was, as some may not
know, direct competition for MS-DOS 5. A much better and more elaborate OS
than M$ had on the shelves. M$ simply caused Win 3.1 to display an error
message on DR's product to scare of the customers, saying "DR's may look
good, but it's not as COMPATIBLE as ours! Be careful!" while DR's product
actually ran Windows very happily.
Due to these tactics the fortune 500 companies with their non-technical
management all went for M$'s apparently safe path and left the innovative DR
behind.
You should stroll the internet and look for a famous document called the
Halloween Memo. This was leaked from M$ management in 1998 and described the
way Linux and other Open Source project should be 'dealt with' (ie. driven
out of the market).
M$'s strategy comes down to taking standard protocols like HTTP, POP3, etc..
and extending them, then closing the specs and, using its monopoly position,
rendering the original open standards useless.. thus effectively killing
Linux. Mind you though, this isn't my theory, it's what's set out in M$'s
memo.
M$ should have had Win95 carry a different slogan from the 'Where do you
want to go today?'
... You're not going ANYWHERE today!
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 17:38:19 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Nathaniel Jay Lee from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Tue, 11 Jul 2000
[...]
>I agree completely. But, there are those that run stable. This does
>not mean that it is the norm (and it certainly isn't) or that you can
>predict in any way shape or form how to make them stable, but it
>happens. I'm not trying to make Windows look good (and I don't know
>where you got that impression). I suppose since I didn't just say MS
>SUCKS, USE SOMETHING ELSE, I'm considered a WinTroll. I do think MS
>sucks, and I won't use it for myself, but I won't lie about it either.
How many times are we going to go over this? If you can't predict which
ones are normal, then what makes you think there are any that are
normal? Just because they haven't randomly crashed *yet*, you're going
to assume they won't? This is *not* an issue for Microsoft or Windows.
THIS IS AN ISSUE FOR ALL YOU GUYS WHO INSIST YOU KNOW COMPUTERS. If in
even some *small* part, you are fooling yourselves, then it isn't a good
thing. I rely on you guys. I don't like to think people I rely on are
basing their opinion on assumptions. That's all.
Your level of acceptance concerning "stability" is based on an
assumption, even if it does happen to match your observations.
Sorry for being an asshole about it. But we'll get rid of crappy
Windows when people are willing to question their assumptions, and not
before. Whether your assumption puts Windows in a good light or a bad
light is irrelevant.
--
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: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:26:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 17:46:18 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >> On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 15:50:58 GMT, Roberto Alsina
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >
> >> >> 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.
> >
> >With your skewed idea of reality, maybe.
> >
> >There are libraries under the GPL: libreadline, libgdbm, for example,
>
> That only means there are exceptions to the norm.
So, what? You know, the old latin proverb doesn't say that the exception
proves the rule, but that the exception TESTS the rule. Meaning that
if the exception is real, the rule is not universal.
> You are still willfully misrepresenting the situation.
You said there is no likelihood of libraries being under the GPL.
There are libraries under the GPL. So, there must be SOME likelihood.
The obvious misrepresentation here is not mine.
I am arguing that GPL'd libraries are bad, by giving an example where
they would be particularly bad. And you say I am misrepresenting?
> >and there is a very influential group calling for more libraries
> >to be under the GPL: the FSF. Just read their "Why not use the LGPL"
> >position paper.
>
> ...and people are pretty much ignoring them as most of us
> don't have the same political agenda as the FSF but view
> Free Software as more a matter of pragmatism than ideology.
So, what?
You said there is no necessity. Others claim different. I didn't
even say *I* believe it necessary. Opinion, and not even my opinion.
How am I misrepresenting anything?
My opinion is that no libraries should be GPL. However, I have written
a library and released it under the GPL.
> [deletia]
>
> This is all intensely ironic considering that you are a
> developer and 'champion' for one of these more normal
> sets of libraries. It makes your position that much more
> dishonest.
It would if I were advocating for libraries to be GPL.
You know, you should actually read what I write before replying. I am
advocating AGAINST GPL libraries, by giving an example where such
a thing would be bad!
Man, arguing with you is hard. I mean, you are so desperate to call me
names, you don't bother arguing against my points, only against pieces
of what I write!
--
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
******************************
