Linux-Advocacy Digest #651, Volume #27 Thu, 13 Jul 00 16:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (ZnU)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (ZnU)
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? (Mikey)
Re: LINUX NFS SUX !!!
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: 11 Linux features I care about (was: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.)
(cabal2112)
Re: I had a reality check today :( (Andres Soolo)
Re: Why use Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Andres Soolo)
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? (Andres Soolo)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Kenneth P. Turvey)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ZnU <[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 18:40:28 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] () from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12
> >On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 23:20:00 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] () from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Tue, 11
> >> [...]
> >>Are you willing to consider, Jedi, being what I know to be a very bright
> >>and reasonable person, that the MacOS doesn't do this *wrong*, for its
> >>purposes? Anyone who has ever been interrupted repetitively in the
> >
> > Nope.
>
> That's a shame. I though you would be willing to consider it, but I
> suppose you're too close to the subject.
>
> > QNX is a great counterexample: genuine realtime OS.
>
> Never heard of it, and don't see what it has to do with desktop clients,
> where a "genuine realtime OS" is generally not necessary or indicated.
>
> > The difference here being control and the ability to actually
> > garauntee and verify the results you are seeking. A "lets all
> > play nice" design philosophy just doesn't do that.
>
> No, but you don't need to do that on a client desktop, where control and
> the ability to verify results are inseparable, since the User staring at
> the screen is doing both, simultaneously, interactively, and
> continuously. We don't need the computer to second guess us about it,
> even if we're 'clueless end users'.
You keep repeating such things. CMT doesn't put the user in control, it
puts the apps in control. This is bad, because the apps can't know what
else the system is doing, so they have no idea when they should be
yielding CPU time.
> > The same goes for UI design. If it's good enough to be a part
> > of some "one true UI", it should be encoded into the enviroment
> > such that potentially malicious or stupid individuals can't muck
> > it up.
>
> Not very flexible, kind of puts a damper on innovation and adaptation,
> doesn't it? Yes, all software should be firmware should be hardware.
> The world would be a better place, then. ???
Most innovation and adaptation in in the user interface department just
makes things worse. In the rare case where an application developer does
actually come up with something that works better for a particular app
than the standard, any potential productivity gains are typically offset
by the fact that the user needs to learn much more to use the app, and
has to consciously remember how things work in that app vs. in
everything else.
This is one of my big fears about Microsoft's .Net platform: there won't
be any more UI standards than there are on the web in general. Every app
will work differently.
This is also a big problem under the Unix OSes, of course, where nobody
can agree on a toolkit.
> [...]
> > What the MacOS does was an engineering tradeoff for a more
> > austere time and partially an issue of legacy support. One
> > doesn't need CMT in order to suddenly pollute the user's
> > display with messages or to assign them some heightened
> > priority. Infact, a system with a real executive of some sort
> > in control would be far more effective in delivering this sort
> > of thing.
>
> Nothing is ever entirely dependant on anything else when you're dealing
> with software; its pretty mutable. That doesn't mean that PMT is
> magically superior to CMT. Quite the opposite in fact. It means CMT
> *is* superior, as I've stated, because it, rather than being a simple
> archaic approach, requires cooperation from app vendors,
They can cooperate all they like. It still won't work as well as PMT,
because the apps don't know anything about what else is running on the
system.
> which *does*
> require a mandate to be implemented, given the differing perspective of
> the vendor and the end user versus the ultra-geek that knows what a
> real-time OS is.
A real-time OS is an OS that _guarantees_ a given response time. I'm not
quite sure why you seem to be against the idea, given what you've said
about the importance of the issue.
> It also contributes (without either guaranteeing or
> prohibiting the alternative) to allowing the operator to have control
> over which applications get priority, without having to actually
> implement a priority system, by simply assuming (and it is a valid
> assumption almost all the time on a desktop client system) that whatever
> program the user is working in is the one that should have priority.
No. That isn't what happens in a CMT system. I've pointed this out
multiple times. Once the foreground app gives up the CPU, it can be
grabbed and held by any other app for as long as that app wants, causing
the foreground app to become unresponsive.
> I'm glad we could find something to disagree on, Jedi, but I do hope you
> will consider that you might be over-extending your knowledge of the
> specialties involved, and making assumptions about the practical value
> of theoretical benefits.
None of this is theoretical stuff. Compare the responsiveness of Mac OS
9 vs. BeOS or Mac OS X DP4 or some Unix under load. There is no contest.
Mac OS becomes unusable. A PMT OS doesn't.
--
The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected.
-- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[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 18:57:37 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Quoting Aaron Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
> [...]
> >The problem isn't pre-emptive multi-tasking, it's the IDIOTIC
> >decision among the M$ coding staff that decreed that every time
> >a new window pops up, the GUI focus should immediately switch
> >to the pop-up.
>
> In case you don't know it by now, I'm not a software engineer or
> programmer. But I am pretty knowledgable about computers 'n stuff. I
> realize that you are technically correct. But I also can't help but
> notice that the behavior which is problematic seems to mirror the
> technical approach of the system. It appears that I am arguing for a
> CMT approach on a PMT technology. Thanks for keeping me straight, but
> the issue still remains.
>
> It doesn't matter how wonderful the scheduler is; its a program, not a
> person. The user should decide what gets priority on the desktop, and
> this should generally match the *users* priority on the *desktop*.
Unless the CPU is under 100% load (which is usually isn't), everything
in a PMT system will run just as fast as it would if there was nothing
else running. This isn't the case in a CMT system. Under load, a PMT
system remains far more responsive because no single process can grab
the entire CPU.
In a CMT system, any app (including the foreground app) can become
unresponsive if any other app hogs the CPU. Worse, if, for example,
you're doing a 3D render that's hogging the CPU, everything else in
_that app_ becomes unresponsive. One of the most frustrating things in
Mac OS is hitting the cancel button and needing to wait for 30 seconds
because the operation you're trying to cancel has hogged the CPU to such
an extend that the cancel even can't be processed.
> Get it? If schedulers in PMT systems take efforts to do that, then
> fine. But all this talk of "waste" and horrible inefficiency just
> sounds like second-guessing the operator. It is something I don't
> tolerate from Microsoft, and I wouldn't tolerate it from any other
> desktop system, either.
If you call it "second-guessing the operator" to assume that the user
wants things to get done as fast as possible and the system to remain as
responsive as possible....
--
The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected.
-- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 04:04:28 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> A WHOLE bunch of typos at the Linux documentation project!
>
> "The bilt in Linux firewall..."
>
> "...new firewall utility with more feachers"
>
> --- 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.
Did you consider that English might not be the first language of
everyone who writes documentation?
--
Since-beer-leekz,
Mikey
Best comment in code /*Drunk...fix later*/
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX NFS SUX !!!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 11:51:02 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 10:19:57 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >>
>
> >All NFS servers in my business network are running 2.2.14 kernels with
> >the userland NFS servers.
>
> Where do you get the userland server ? Does it come with your distribution
?
> Should I just grab the src.rpm for the RH 5.2 userland NFS server
> and rebuild ?
Here is the LSM entry for the server.
Begin3
Title: Universal NFS Server for Linux
Version: 2.2beta23
Entered-date: 26SEP96
Description: This package contains the NFS server implementation,
consisting of nfsd, mountd, ugidd, rquotad, and showmount.
Keywords: networking NFS RPC
Author: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Shand)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donald Becker)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rick Sladkey)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Orest Zborowski)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fred N. van Kempen)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Olaf Kirch)
Maintained-by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Olaf Kirch)
Primary-site: ftp.mathematik.th-darmstadt.de /pub/linux/okir/dontuse
154kB nfs-server-2.2beta23.tar.gz
Alternate-site: linux.nrao.edu /pub/people/linux/okir/dontuse
154kB nfs-server-2.2beta23.tar.gz
Platform: requires libwrap.a from tcp_wrappers-6.x or higher to run
ugidd `safely.'
Copying-policy: Mixed (BSD-style with GPL portions)
End
The latest version is 2.2beta48 dated 11-10-99.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 18:58:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I have the same impulses on the rare occassions that I sit in front
of an
> > already booted Windows machine (but of course, they get frustrated).
*While*
> > booting a Windows machine, I find myself anxiously watching it, to
see whether
> > it will succeed or fail.
>
> Yeah, I've had that feeling before too. Tell me something. Have you
> ever been using Windows and caught yourself hitting CNTRL-ALT-F1 to
get
> to a console. I don't use Windows often anymore, but when I do I
spend
> about half of my time hitting keys for consoles and then being
> disappointed when it doesn't drop the GUI. Another thing some of us
> can't live without.
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Nathaniel Jay Lee
>
AND hitting the up arrow to go through your history...
For some or other reason the DOS F3 key doesn't do it for me
anymore............ lol
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: cabal2112 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 11 Linux features I care about (was: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares
about.)
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 19:03:11 GMT
In article <8jps7u$cbr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ben Walker) wrote:
> In article <8jpn79$7mt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> 4. You can logg in remotely
> >>
> >> ...creating the nead for the whole username-and-pasword system. And
> >> since it's a feature that only geeks need, the only "beneffit" for
> >> normal users is that they need a password (see #2) to keep hackers
> >> out, where they don't need one if they run Windows.
> >
> >Controlling a machine remotely has it's benefits. Feel free to bring
up
> >Linux without networking if you like (runlevel 2)
>
> Being able to login to machines remotely is a good thing. At a remote
> research site I help to support, we have several Linux machines
running as
> general purpose servers, database servers, and data acquisition
machines. I
> initially installed and configured these machines, brought them to the
site,
> and have not been back to the site in 2 and a half years. I routinely
> administer and maintain these machines from in town. It's a lot
easier
> doing this than driving 150 miles to the site and wasting half a day
> traveling. My colleague, who manages the NT machines, goes up about
> every week or 2, and will sometimes need to bring an NT machine back
to
> reinstall NT. Every NT machine typically gets reinstalled every few
> months.
>
> >
> >> 5. "X" Windows works over a network.
> >>
> >> Another faeture that nobody ever uses. This doesn't make "X"
Windows
> >> more usefull to most users. Windows still wins.
> >
> >On whos behalf are you talking? In my daily work, I often need to
> >control a server remotely, and I think that products like NetOp
> >(http://www.crossteccorp.com/) prove that Windows users also happen
to
> >require remote GUI access.
> >But then again, I've got a _real_ job...
>
> This again has been crucial for me. On our data acquisition machines,
I
> can su to that users account and run the GUI application as them with
their
> configuration settings, and see exactly what is causing problems. I
too
> have a real job, and remote access has been invaluable.
>
> On a side note, if anybody is interested in Linux drivers for Computer
> Boards DAS 1600 data acquisition board, DIO48 digital I/O board, AMD
9513
> timer board, or Truetime IRIG board, we have written Linux drivers for
these.
> They were written for 2.0 kernels, and not as slick as production
drivers,
> but they work well and are stable. I should put them up on my web
page in
> case anybody wants to try them out, but I suspect there aren't many
out
> there running data acquisition under Linux.
>
oh yeah!?..well my dog can kick your dog's but!!!
dont take this seriously, i'm just havin a little fun is all!
sometimes humor can lighten the load of fact-opinion in your face
rhetoric..i must admit i enjoy reading the shots os users take at each
other. its funny to see someone get so worked up with their
opinions.
btw...i use windows...but i love linux!
cabal
--
--you are no longer boone---you are cabal---save me from my enemies--
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: 13 Jul 2000 19:10:28 GMT
Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2) Somebody had to write Lookout. (And ought to be shot for it.)
S/he was probably just following orders. :-)
>> ...only if you use SLRN. In Outlook its easie you just use scroalbar.
> 1) Oh, sure. So you scroll right to read the end of the line, and then
> you scroll back to the left to read the next line, and then you scroll
> back to the right to read the end of the line....it sounds trivial
> until you've tried to read about 20 or 30 lines that way.
Watch out for Microsoft's Next Invention (tm): a mouse with TWO wheels.
> So it's not a point that Lookout spreads viruses like a cheap whore? Tell
> me, Timmy-boy, which mail client brought down millions of mail servers
> around the world a few weeks ago? Was it Lookout, or some Unix mail
> client?
He addressed that point a couple of weeks ago. In a quite funny way, I
must say :-)
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
TEUTONIC:
Not enough gin.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 19:15:46 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8kkt31$cgb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Just checking --- you *did* install it via an RPM from Mandrake's Web
>site, right?
Oh dear, no I didn't. I thought it was so new it wouldn't appear there.
I'll go and take a look see.
Pete
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: 13 Jul 2000 19:17:47 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Understanding Race conditions is one of SEVERAL reasons why any
>> application
>> programmer (at least those who want to achieve excellance) should
> learn
>> about the process scheduler for the platform on which they program.
> Depends on your definition of application doesn't it?
> If you're talking a single threaded, single process application, how
> do race conditions even apply?
If that simple application lives in a world alone, they probably won't.
As soon as it wants to communicate with other processes/applications/tasks,
some potential race conditions start to slip in.
Besides, limiting oneself just to very simple processes isn't a smart
move for a programmer. Not career-wise nor satisfaction-wise.
> Please expand on what you mean. I can't see that every application
> needing to consider race conditions - which is what you appear to be
> saying.
All applications don't, but many, especially the interesting ones that
really do something, do.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
VICARIOUSLY experience some reason to LIVE!!
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: 13 Jul 2000 19:32:08 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> That is no excuse. They could at least have someone proof read it.
Are you volunteering for the Linux Documentation Proofreading Project?
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And littered with
sloppy analysis!
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 19:30:54 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:21:28 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 15:59:17 GMT, Roberto Alsina
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Jedi said there was no likelyhood or necessity of libraries being
> >GPL.
> >>
> >> ...a claim rather well supported by the fact that the one
> >> trying to undermine it infact works on a large generalized
> >> framework that is not, which itself exploits many facilities
> >> that are themselves not.
> >
> >Oh, my goodness. Are you drunk or something? You can't create
> >generality out of examples.
> [deletia]
>
> Just give it up already. You are simply full of shit.
Again, you are confusing me with jedi.
> Now anyone else can make up their own mind if they wish to bother.
Hopefully.
>
> The vast array of support libraries that come with a Linux
> distribution, including KDE and those that it depends on are
> a far more meaningful indication of what is 'likely' with
> Free Software.
Man, changing what you said can actually make you say something
correct. Amazing.
Brief recap: I made a hypothetical example of what could happen if,
say, the TCP sample implementation was GPL, in the context of having
sample implementations be copylefted.
You accused me of being a dishonest liar who misrepresents something.
I still have no idea of why.
You said that there was NO LIKELIHOOD of a library being GPL.
Now, you change it to "libraries being GPL is unlikely" and try to
continue the argument. As long as you know you are not saying the
same thing you were before, it's ok by me. I agree with this new
statement. It also is no reason to say I misrepresented anything, or
that I was dishonest, or anything like that, so your accusation is
still just a gratuitous insult.
> As I've stated before, those that actually control the course
> of large software development (rather than twits such as
> yourself)
Strangely enough, I have released about 30KLOC of code under free
licenses, with more to come. How many have you released to call me
a twit? 1? And believe it or not, I do have a tiny piece of control
in KDE. A very tiny one, though.
> projects have already been quite happily and effectively
> exploiting Free Software to their own benefit.
Such as the ones I am involved with?
> I'll be laughing all the way to the bank.
Oh, my goodness, you are getting more incoherent than usual.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kenneth P. Turvey)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 14:30:16 -0500
On 13 Jul 2000 14:49:36 +0100, Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> "Kenneth" == Kenneth P Turvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Kenneth> The concept is simple. There are some aspects of life that
> Kenneth> not even the majority should have the right to regulate.
> Kenneth> Some things are outside the legitimate right of government
> Kenneth> to regulate at all.. no matter what form of government it
> Kenneth> is.
>
> And how are you going to maintain these essential freedoms?
>The dictatorship of the market that we have at the moment does not
>give a damn many basic human rights. I would argue that democracy is
>the best way to protect these rights.
I would argue that a limited constitutional republic, like the ones you
and I live under, is the best way we have found to date to protect those
rights.
--
Kenneth P. Turvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.tranquility.net/~kturvey/resume/resume.html
========================================================
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed. -- The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 19:39:37 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:32:32 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 16:20:24 GMT, Roberto Alsina
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >
> >> >[snip] I won't debate with you anymore.
> >> >
> >> >> >Honestly, I was in it for fun. People like you make me doubt
it's
> >> >worth
> >> >> >the trouble.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why is that? Is free inquiry a bit too scary for you?
> >> >
> >> >No, it's the part where you asked me to die, bozo, and that you
> >deleted
> >> >in your response. I need not take shit from you.
> >> >
> >> >Now, what have you done for this "free software community" you
seem
> >> >to like so much? What have you done to pull your own weight?
> >>
> >> If he's countering the FUD and lies you are spreading that
> >> would be a considerable service.
> >
> >You know, you keep calling me a liar and not point to any lies I say.
>
> Sure I do. You just have this dellusion you're not lying.
Well, I'm sure you can post a reference to a post and say "here you
lied". You called me a liar in this very thread, yet you did not say
what the lie was, unless you mean the statement you dispute below.
I know I am not lying because I know I am not intentionally making
false statements.
> >Are you lying?
> >
> >I know you don't like me, but could you at least keep an appearance
of
> >honesty in your actions?
>
> You represent it to be more likely than it actually is that
> a shared library will be GPLed. This blatant lie can be
> verified by anyone that chooses to do so in any of the
> usenet archives.
What? I never said that specific libraries being GPL was "very likely",
or "a sure thing", or "probable", or "likely".
Let me put this in simple ways you can understand.
The following are not the same:
* A library is likely to be GPL.
* It's likely that there are/will be GPL libraries.
Get it?
Now, see what I write, and decide what position I expressed. Now see
what position you are opposing. See the pattern?
> You also do this while claiming to be software developer for
> the sort of project that tends to undermine your own position.
I am claiming it, indeed, and it is a claim that can be easily verified.
It's a fact. You may like it or not. Are you saying I am not a KDE
developer?
And what position exactly does it undermine? If it's the position that
libraries in general are likely to be GPL, well, that was never my
position anyway.
> [deletia]
>
> While RMS may infact want to infect the world, the framework he
> created has taken on a life of it's own and is not under this
> thumb.
But the considerable software producing resources of the FSF and
his followers are. It's likely that more libraries will be GPL in the
future.
--
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
******************************
