Linux-Advocacy Digest #638, Volume #27 Thu, 13 Jul 00 01:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 13 Jul 2000 04:28:52 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:58:29 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Quoting void from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 12 Jul 2000 05:05:24 GMT
> [...]
>>Single-user or not, nobody wants their computer locked up because one
>>application has a serious bug. Operating systems should be resilient
>>against programmer error, because bugs happen and they happen a lot.
>
>No, desktop client operating systems need to be more resilient to user
>errors. Programmers are assumed to have done their job correctly.
You're insulting my intelligence with these obvious falsehoods. Macs
*do* crash, applications *do* die horribly, programmers fuck up on a
such a regular and frequent basis that I often wonder how most of them
stay alive.
>That
>this doesn't always happen is not the issue, as lock-ups do occasionally
>occur (at least X dies, which is good enough for most end users) even on
>PMT systems.
It takes a lot more to kill X than it does to kill MacOS, and it happens
correspondingly less frequently. I haven't had X die on me since 1996,
and I use unix daily.
>>Can you find a way to make cooperative multitasking as robust as
>>preemptive multitasking?
>
>No. Can you find a way to make PMT as user-responsive as CMT?
I find it to be more responsive. When I use MacOS, I'm forever waiting
on something unrelated to whatever I'm doing. When I use FreeBSD,
running several applications concurrently is much smoother.
>Then all you're doing is implementing CMT.
You're smoking crack.
>The result is the value, not the
>process. I don't care *how* you do the scheduling.
Yes you do; you're advocating CMT. Which is a damn stupid thing to do,
so I can see why you'd want to pretend you're not.
>As long as whatever
>program I'm working in has, as far as I am concerned 100% of the
>available time to keep up with me, even if it spends a lot of that time
>waiting. Of course, background processes shouldn't be ignored, but they
>only rarely have true priority.
What does it mean to "have priority"? I think that your conception of
the problem domain is too fuzzy and metaphor-dominated.
>Again, I'm over-simplifying the case by assuming that everything is user
>applications, and I/O devices (network, drive) don't screw things up
>because they were locked out. I'm not sure how those details are
>handled, so perhaps I am merely arguing for a PMT system that pretends
>to be CMT, now that we are no longer limited to the stand alone
>"austere" environment which the Mac was developed in. But having you
>guys argue against the logic so hard and only concentrate on the
>engineer's view is a bit disconcerting.
What does "pretends to be CMT" mean? CMT is when applications keep the
CPU until they explicitly relinquish it. (If someone has a better
definition, please correct me.) CMT is a mechanism, and you have
somehow equated it with a fuzzily-conceived observed behavior of
"responsiveness", and now you're suggesting that a "responsive" PMT
system would therefore be "pretending to be CMT". You're making my head
hurt!
>>Anyway, the type of multitasking and the behavior of the GUI are not as
>>tightly coupled as you think.
>
>Yes, that's what I've finally realized. Yet I suspect they are not as
>unrelated as theory indicates. I would still always like to have the
>GUI have preference in multitasking.
Which theory are you referring to here?
I would guess that someone before you has thought about how to tweak a
scheduler for the best interactive experience. I would further guess
that they did not recommend implementing cooperative multi-tasking.
>>I disagree, and so do Apple, Microsoft, Be, and anyone else who might be
>>producing new desktop operating systems.
>
>Yes, and I'm worried it means that's not a single person who can be an
>engineer and still maintain an end-users perspective. I guess I'm
>probably wrong, but you guys have done little to raise my comfort value.
Given that a lot of people who have to understand this stuff for a
living disagree with you, what do you think is the probability that
you're seeing something they're not, versus the probability that they're
seeing something you're not?
When I hear people going on about the "end-user's perspective", it seems
to me that they're usually defending a position of ignorance. Ignorance
is not worth defending.
>>But on unix, the background task will only slow very slightly, while
>>interactive apps are still nice and responsive. You should read up on
>>the algorithm used to do this, it's quite clever.
>
>I have no use for clever algorithms!
And they have no use for you.
>You speak in theoretical cases.
I speak of algorithms that run the systems that I use daily,
professionally.
>When I've got five program instances running, I want the one I'm *using*
>to be the one taking up almost all of the computers time. When I go to
>thirty eight instances (I've done it; just me browsing the web, and
>ignoring the many other processes), I don't want the front one to be any
>slower, not just "only very slightly" slower.
Yes you do. If you have four browser windows downloading pages, and
only the one in front gets to run at all, the other three transfers will
timeout and fail. If that's what you want, why open four windows in the
first place?
>My point is that cycles spent waiting for the user on a desktop client
>system are not *wasted*. They are *spent*. Waiting for me. Engineers
>have a warped, not inaccurate, but different, view of "noticeable" than
>end users do.
If you notice time intervals that are measured in nanoseconds, it must
be very interesting to be you.
>>That's because you overestimate the role of multitasking in determining
>>how the GUI functions.
>
>No, I overestimate the role of approach in how engineering gets done.
>I'm very ruthless in this regard: the user counts; the engineer's
>theory's don't.
So: anyone who knows shit from shinola is an "engineer", and "engineers"
don't count, therefore no one can argue with you. Very cute. Ignorance
is the basic cornerstone of your philosophy, but since philosophy comes
from the Greek (Greek? I think so) roots for "like" and "knowledge",
it's more appropriately called an anti-philosophy.
>>I can't tell what you're saying here.
>
>I'm saying that if CMT is so horrid, and PMT is so superior, why is the
>Mac still outselling Linux PCs? :-)
There's a lot that influences market share besides quality.
>Just tweaking. We can drop the subject now. Thanks for hearing me out;
>I have been convinced. Provisionally.
>
>--
>T. Max Devlin
>Manager of Research & Educational Services
I can't believe someone put you in charge of research. You seem to have
a worldview that is actively antagonistic to science and learning.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:41:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
[...]
>Because that's not what I meant? The Debian position is that doing
>that is illegal, not expensive.
You know what they say about opinions...
[...]
>> I feel like I'm a Microsoft troll, arguing that OEM's freely agreed to
>> pre-load monopoly lock-in agreements, so Microsoft is blameless.
>
>That should give you pause.
Except RSM isn't the richest man in the world, and hasn't been
profiteering and monopolizing for the last twenty years. He's just a
guy with an idea. You don't like it, ignore him. Bill Gates I cannot
ignore.
[...]
>So, your opinion on what the GPL allows changes based on what I say?
>What kind of opinion is that?
My opinion on what GPL allows changes based on the context of the
discussion. It works that way for everything else, too. It sucks,
believe me. I truly wish I could just make assumptions and get on with
my life like the rest of you guys.
[...]
>I said "some say". It's not only Debian's position. It just isn't my
>position.
All right, all right. You've acquitted yourself. My apologies. I just
wish it hadn't take such a long exchange; you could have explained
yourself more completely the first time. Its this 'hit and run
contradiction' that wastes all of our time.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 23:51:43 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 12 Jul 2000 \
>>Copyrights let you re-implement if you don't copy anything. Patents
>>cover the process or thing itself so you can't avoid the
>>patent license even if you re-invent it without seeing the original.
>
>You overgeneralize the term 'copy', Les. You can copy the code, you
>can't copy the intellectual property. There is no absolute distinction,
>but there is always a distinction. A physical hard bound set of pages
>with printing on them is not intellectual property. A book, is not
>intellectual property. There is intellectual property in the book, yes,
>but there is (and never will be) any empirical test to distinguish the
>printing from the IP.
That isn't what I meant. If someone managed to create the identical
story without ever knowing about the copyrighted version then
the duplicate is not covered by copyright law and there is some
grey area about similarities when copying is a possibility. With
a patent, the duplicate is covered regardless.
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: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:54:05 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
>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.
This is true only because it is a trade secret license, rather than a
copyright license. If it were a copyright license, it would be
copyright law, not the license, preventing the recipient of the copy
from running it.
Don't give away your rights so easily. You don't need a license to run
software any more than you need a license to read a book. I mean
*actually*. Do you agree to license (knowingly, consciously, accepting
a binding legal agreement controlling your actions) when you buy a book?
Hell no. The license which was necessary for the copy to be created has
NO binding restrictions whatsoever with the purchase of that copy.
That's why commercial software has two different licenses. The OEM
license allows them to copy, but also requires that they deliver the
copy with a putatively dependant license agreement with the end user.
The EULA is not an *extension* of the OEM license. The "chain of
licensing" argument is very hard to sort out, apparently, for some
people. It is a fallacy; there is no "chain of licensing".
The author creates the work.
The producer pays the author to grant permission (a license) to make
copies of the work (produce goods using the intellectual property).
The producer sells the goods to a distributor.
The distributor sells the goods to consumers.
There is no licensing in normal IP transactions. Now, commercial
software IP:
The author creates the work.
The producer pays the author (ostensibly) to grant permission to make
copies of the work (produce software goods using the intellectual
property). The author demands that the producer further agree, in order
to get permission to copy the work, that they cannot distribute the
goods to anyone other than who the author specifies.
The producer sells the goods to a distributor. The producer demands
that the distributor only distribute the goods under the terms of a
trade secret license.
The distributor sells the goods to the consumer under the terms of a
trade secret license.
Now, for clarity's sake, GPL:
The author creates the work.
The author GPLs the work.
Everybody can use it freely.
Everybody can make money on producing, distributing, or consuming the
software, at their whim, but only under the restrictions that they
cannot stop anyone else from producing, distributing, or consuming the
software, at their own whim.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 23:59:42 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 12 Jul 2000
> [...]
>>The sheer numbers of things that can't be combined is enough
>>to convince me, but if you want something concrete start with
>>the example of including GNU readline in a program that
>>processes GIF files.
>
>You'll have to be more specific in identifying the issues; I am not
>familiar enough with the details of GIF or readline to know why this
>would be a problem.
Why don't you do your own research before posting unfounded opinions?
If you haven't read the GPL I don't understand your postings at
all. If you have read the GPL then you should understand the
issue of re-using code along with any code under different restrictions.
>Is there some particular reason I'm supposed to be
>scared that GIF will disappear if GPL is successful? Good. That'll
>save me a lot of downloading time next time I hit the web.
It is a specific and well-known example of a larger problem.
>Bear in mind, if you want to explore this further. I have no concern
>for whether GIF/readline would be a problem for software developers. If
>it isn't a problem for the consumer, it isn't a problem.
A problem for developers is always a problem for consumers. You
can't consume something until it is developed.
> [...]
>>What are you talking about? The GPL restrictions have nothing to
>>do with exploiting anything. They restrict giving things away
>>just the same as selling.
> You're trolling.
No, I'm responding with facts to a troll.
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: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 01:03:52 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
11:45:57 -0400
>On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Tue, 11 Jul 2000
>> [...]
>>> Ok, after he explains, tell him that in your opinion, the SCSL is free,
>>> and continue referring to software licensed under the SCSL as free
>>> software. I bet you $10 that each time you do, he will interrupt you.
>> If I new what SCSL was, and understood the example, I might very well
>> refrain from doing as you suggest, because I suspect I would agree with
>> him.
>
>You'd have a lot more credibility if:
> 1. You bothered to look beyond the GPL to understand what the open
> source community is REALLY like, as well as what companies who are
> embracing open source but not the stupidity of the GPL are
> doing...
So don't embrace it.
> 2. You stopped saying stupid things.
> 3. You had the first clue as to what software development involves.
I'm here to keep you guys honest; you keep track of what software
development involves.
To your second point, here's another "stupid thing":
If GPL does precisely what you say, and puts programmers who are needed
by consumers to develop software out of work, then what will happen?
Software will get very expensive, because there won't be enough
programmers to develop all the software people want, right?
And you know what I think would happen then? Its incredible, even
stupid, I know, but I'll tell you: people will learn to write software.
And personally, I think that end-users should be writing their own
software. Certainly businesses should be developing their own stuff; it
ain't that hard. Take a wordprocessing object from over here, stick it
with an email client object over there. Simple, easy, affordable.
What, it isn't that easy?
Sounds like we need to find someone who will sell us (and install and
maintain and develop...) some better end-user programming environments.
There will always be the need for software. That is why the GPL is not
a stupid idea, but a good one. It is the only open source license that
recognizes that. An unlimited need, and unlimited supply; tell me again
why the profit needs to be there?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[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
******************************
