Linux-Advocacy Digest #662, Volume #27 Fri, 14 Jul 00 00:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Steve Mading)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Peter Ammon)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Peter Ammon)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [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 22:29:33 -0500
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 23:20:19 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Quoting ZnU from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Thu, 13 Jul 2000 18:57:37 GMT
> [...]
>>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.
>
>What do you mean by "responsive"? I think you're only considering the
>average responsiveness of all applications. The whole point of CMT is
>that, when under load, the *average* response can go to hell (to a
>certain level; connections don't time-out in nanoseconds), as long as
>the process the user interface is concerned with at the moment can grab
>*almost* the entire CPU, if it needs it.
And that's the problem with CMT. What if you put a rendering job in
the bg? It dies, basically. It's a PITA on a modern computer - you
can run one thing, and everything else is suspended. Oh, it isn't
nearly that bad, and modern CPUs have smoothed over some of the
problems, but still, it's a horrid method of MT'ing.
>>In a CMT system, any app (including the foreground app) can become
>>unresponsive if any other app hogs the CPU.
>
>Thus providing the need for cooperation. Yes, any system that is based
>on cooperation can screw up the system for everyone. Are you saying
>Token Ring is better than Ethernet? TCP/IP sucks compared to X.25?
>Microchannel was more successful than the original PC? All of these
>very important technologies are all based on one thing: you cannot
>mandate technical value in market-driven development. So stop trying.
>Because there is always technical value in cooperation, and the market
>LOVES cooperation. Its what its built for. System which mandate
>cooperation end up being far superior than systems which attempt to
>impose even egalitarian rules.
Software isn't a standard. Yours is a pie in the sky fantasy.
>>Worse, if, for example,
>>you're doing a 3D render that's hogging the CPU, everything else in
>>_that app_ becomes unresponsive.
>
>Sounds like renderer should be a separate process.
>Is that too tough? You realize it would provide value all by itself, right? At least
>I
>assume so, since multi-threaded programs seem to be very popular in the
>market.
I think that was a poor example. A better one is simply putting the
rendering app in the bg, and watching as it dies while your
newsreader, which requires perhaps .2% CPU time, gets almost 100% CPU
time. CMT is a very poor method for multitasking; everyone else has
dropped it (even, finally, Apple). Why do you champion it? You've
yet to list a technical benefit that can't also be offered by PMT.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: 14 Jul 2000 03:34:56 GMT
Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Pete. Your posts about how Linux lags behind Windows are amusing to me.
: Here's a little story about how Windows crapped out on me last night,
: and how Linux rescued me. Windows could have never done this.
One handy ways I sometimes find Linux useful for helping fix
windows is when I need to help a friend figure out exactly what
type of hardware they have in their old machine and they lost
the little hardware pamphlets ages ago. When that happens the
easiest way to find out has been to boot the machine with a Linux
boot CD or floppy, and use the hardware-recognition messages that
spew by during boot to figure out the exact make and model number
for the hardware. This "don't hide anything from the user if there
is no reason to" attitude of Linux tends to be very handy. I've
also fixed older windows partitions' autoexec.bat files by booting a
Linux mini rescue disk, mounting the windows partition, and then
using 'vi' on autoexec.bat. I haven't had to do this anymore since
the newer versions of Windows seem to be relying on autoexec less
and less (a good thing), but a few years back I did it several times.
------------------------------
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 23:40:43 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Thu, 13 Jul 2000
[...]
>Please stop revealing your ignorance; as someone who *writes* software
>for a living and deals with the improvement of 'a product that's
>already written' every single fucking day ... I know what software
>costs to write, and it ain't what you pretend to think. (I'm not sure I
>give you the benefit of the doubt on thinking at this point. You seem
>to have bought your own hype.)
I know what software costs to right, too, and I'm not even a developer.
It costs about 1/100, at best, of what most companies sell it for. I
think Windows9x has been calculated to be selling at 800% or 2000%
profit margins, or something.
>> I didn't even realize, I guess because I must be just plain immune to
>> it, that this is a FUD tactic. You are honestly trying to scare people
>> into avoiding GPL by saying "if you buy that, no software worth buying
>> will be available". An entirely ludicrous statement, and it has nothing
>> to do with the "realities of software development". It is the reality
>> of a free market. If software is worth buying, it will be available.
>
>But only if there can be controls on where it goes.
There are. Its copyrighted work. People can't copy it without
permission. Just because you have permission doesn't mean there are no
controls. The only control that's necessary is that there be no
controls, according to Richard Stallmans Politics and the metaphor of
Free Software. Open publication didn't put book publishers, newspapers,
or magizines out of business. Why do you think it will prevent software
from being commercially used to generate profit? Sure, people *use* it,
so they might not need three books on the same subject, so to speak.
But if they're cheap enough, and intercompatible, I can't see any reason
not to. And they'll always want enhancements, and need maintenance or
re-implementation.
Like software now, at least a small percentage of purchases of
commercial distributions may well be performed simply to encourage the
development of like products. I know people who have gone out and
bought a game they've already played (from a borrowed copy), partially
to reward the developers for a job well done and encourage them to do
more.
>> As long as there's a free market. And right now there ain't, but its
>> the only market you've ever seen for software, so you *assume* it is the
>> only one which could exist.
>
>No, I don't. I happen to have seen a few different types of software
>markets (that all exist simultaneously!) -- and the ability to sell
>software licences or copies simplifies the whole process. When the only
>way that software companies can make money is as services companies,
>you don't get as good software in general.
Markets aren't pie charts. All markets are the same market, all
products are different markets. Take your pick, but please be
consistent and clear in your choice. Yes, selling software simplifies
the whole process. Licenses aren't needed, in fact, except to support
exorbitant profits. I suspect that software companies will continue to
be thought of as product developers, at least through our functional
lifetime. The idea of software as a service requires common awareness
of the details of software. I'm not a plumber, but I know how plumbing
works, in general.
>Please -- get a fucking clue, nitwit.
Thanks. Already got one.
--
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: Peter Ammon <[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 20:36:56 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Quoting Peter Ammon from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Thu, 13 Jul 2000
> [...]
> >It is nice to have the complete attention of the CPU when you're doing
> >something. I miss it in Classic dialogs in OS X, which feel jumpy.
> >Windows is the same way.
>
> So, Peter, you seem to support my point. But is it really the PMT/CMT,
> or are you just noticing differences in effect, but not process? Do
> you know what I mean?
...no...
> Do you have technical indications this is CMT, or
> might it not just be a mirage which is conveniently explained as CMT?
It's the only explanation I can think of for why classic modal dialogs
would feel less responsive under OS X, especially when OS X is under
heavy load.
>
> One of the reasons I ask is that, as the PMT advocates will tell you,
> you don't really have "the complete attention of the CPU".
That's true. There are still those bits that are preemptively scheduled
in the Mac OS. But the foreground is certaintly receiving a lot more
attention than the background.
-Peter
------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[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 20:41:34 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Slava Pestov wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Then why did the original Mac OS team implement CMT?
> >
> > (Hint: it wasn't because they were incapable of producing something
> > better)
>
> The original MacOS was not written with multitasking in mind (unless
> you could desk accessories).
Yes, desk accessories.
> When they made the MultiFinder, they
> probabably decided to make it CMT, because PMT would require major
> changes to the toolbox, which was written without re-entrancy in mind.
The more fundamental reason is that the Mac simply didn't have the
memory to do it. So there is at least one example of a benefit:
cooperative multitasking is more efficient in terms of memory used.
-Peter
------------------------------
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 23:46:33 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 12 Jul 2000
[...]
>>Do you have some more specific description of how patents preclude GPL
>>implementation?
>
>There is nothing specific about it. Anyone owning the patented
>resource can restrict it with any license they want. There are a
>few that have been released to the public domain, like the setuid
>bit as used in unix, but typically the license requires payment
>for use. The compression code used in GIF's is probably the
>best-known example because it was published without mention of the
>patent and wrongly assumed to be unrestricted at the time the GIF
>format was developed and released for free use. Later the patent
>owners came forward and demanded license fees.
Demanded very small and almost un-noticable to the end user licensing
fees, as a matter of fact. So I guess you've answered your own
question. Software which uses patented technology will require a small
fee.
>>AFAIK: ALL patents are inherently "open source" to
>>begin with, after all. Having to license a patent in order to prepare
>>derivative works of GPL software is a requirement for the developer to
>>deal with, and does not inhibit or affect GPL itself.
>
>If the derived work includes a patented component that is
>not freely redistributable itself under the GPL, then no
>GPL component can be used at all if the work is to be
>redistributed (you can write and use such a thing yourself
>but you can't give away even your own part according to
>the FSF interpretation of libraries being part of the whole).
OK. Don't do that then.
[...]
>At issue is the problem of re-using any GPL'd component in the
>case where you need to combine it with some patented resource.
Don't re-use GPL components in the case where you want to combine it
with *source containing patented technology*, unless you want your
profiteering off of the very small patent license fee you, as a
developer, needed to use to create the work. The cost of the license to
use patented software is not a cost to the developer of the software,
only the user. You can't profiteer off of it, no, but that doesn't in
any way hinder your use of it otherwise, AFAICS.
>This is really no different from any other existing code
>with restrictions that differ from the GPL, but with the
>twist that you cannot re-implement it to avoid the issue.
Yea. How about that. Why are you assuming you need to use the
intellectual property of another, rather than come up with your own?
And why do you call writing your own software "re-implementation"?
--
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! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 03:54:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ...you mean like "free country"?
>
>Countries cannot be enslaved, fool. The citizens of said countries
>could be enslaved, but countries cannot.
>
>Would you care to try again?
So, you understand the use of free country, as meaning a country in
which the people in it are free to do certain things, and you don't
object to that, but you object to the notion free software, as meaning
software in which the people that use it are free to do certain things?
[ blink ]
I am so stupid and uneducated that I cannot comprehend. You can
either ignore me, or try and aid my comprehension. Your choice. I am
sincere in at least this one point.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 00:02:11 -0400
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Mike Stump wrote:
> Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Please explain what the above has to do with it.
>> Persons cannot be enslaved.
> ? This is a typo, right?
> Did you mean only persons can be enslaved?
Yes.
> If so, why? Can you cite something that explains this. I am ignorant.
A cite won't really help. Other languages have a stronger sense of the
differences involved that make the concept clearer. I'll try to explain
it for you here.
Words are classified in many different ways (duh, right?). There
are words which represent concepts which have meaning only when
applied against particular classifications of words. Animates,
inanimates, living, non-living, sentient, non-sentient, etc.
For example, one might say, "I ran the drill press." This is a
non-living animate. In turn, one would NOT say, "I ran the hammer."
Hammers don't have the sense that they are animate and can move
without external motive force. (The difference between a hammer and
a drill-press, in this case is that while both are tools, the
drill-press has a motor inside of it and can operate -- without
intent -- as long as power is supplied.) So while it's grammatical
to say, "I ran the hammer" (subject verb object), it's nonsensical
-- semantically void.
One would not say, "I enslaved the drill press," because it is
semantically void. Again, the vital classification of living is
missing, which is one of the concepts generally required for
slavery and enslavement.
Can one "enslave that dog?" PETA would say that you could, but dogs
are not generally held to be sentient beings, which is another
classification used with slavery. It's therefore fair to say that
unless one is referring to a person -- a living sentient -- slavery
cannot apply.
Again, it's grammatically correct to say that software can be enslaved,
but it's semantically void.
>> Tools aren't persons, and therefore cannot be enslaved. The same
>> applies to software, since software is merely a tool.
>> Surely you can understand *that* difference, right?
> No, I risk not being as educated as you in this area, actually. Maybe
> I am more open to the concept of English as being a tool that we
> reshape to fit our needs and desires, and maybe you would be more
> confortable living in France. I don't know the exact reason why I
> can't see the difference.
English *is* a tool that can be reshaped to the needs and desires of
the speakers, but there are both grammatical and semantic rules
*inherent in the language itself* which prevent either grammtical or
semantic meaning in certain combinations.
I'm not saying that it's proscribed to say "software can be enslaved";
I'm saying that it's semantically void to say "software can be
enslaved" -- until you can point out that software has the
characteristics that are generally associated with slavery and
enslavement.
It helps to be familiar with or fluent in multiple languages and have
some background in linguistics; it's not something that's generally
*taught* -- most people *know* these things without thinking twice
about them. Linguistics folks *describe* this stuff and therefore know
a bit more about how the language works than the average user.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
From: [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 23:01:09 -0500
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:41:34 -0700, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>The more fundamental reason is that the Mac simply didn't have the
>memory to do it. So there is at least one example of a benefit:
>cooperative multitasking is more efficient in terms of memory used.
The Amiga did it - beginning with the 256k Amiga - and color and a
bigger screen, too. And it did it quite well, too, for 1985 or so.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 00:03:15 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 12 Jul 2000
[...]
>>>>Patents don't cover the same IP as copyright.
>>>
>>>Theoretically they don't, but in practice they do and with
>>>the serious problem of prohibiting clean-room reimplementations.
>>
>>No, you misunderstand. They *don't*. It is not a "practical" issue.
>>It is a legal issue.
>
>In what way is that not a practical issue as well.
In the way I was using in the context of my statement, obviously.
I would point out that its up to you to provide reason to believe it is
a practical issue. You have attempted to do so and have found fault
with your reasoning because of your assumptions that one must be free to
profiteer in order to earn profit. There are no practical problems,
because copyright and patent don't cover the same things, and do not
therefore conflict. It is only your insistence that copyright be used
as a justification for trade secrets, and your belief that using the
intellectual property of another without permission is ethical, that
causes you to miss the point.
>>Patents apply if the thing is a process or invention.
>
>Patents apply if a patent is granted. Patents are being
>granted to software.
Patents are being applied to unique processes which are implemented in
software. The software is not patented; the process is. Where the line
is drawn is supposedly very hazy, but I suspect, like may copyright
issues I'm running across, that they are only hazy because they aren't
easy to understand if you base your knowledge of copyright on general
assumptions instead of facts.
[...]
>It is all the same issue, and "Richard Stallmans's politics"
>describes it correctly. I don't see how I have lost any
>ground in the discussion about how the GPL unecessarily restricts
>the possibilities of re-use of covered software. You haven't
>come up with a single real example to the contrary.
Nor could I; I believe what you say is true. GPL unnecessarily
restricts the possibilities of re-use of covered software. That is its
purpose and function. Where we differ is not in that, but in why. You
believe it is because of some flake's politics and his dishonest hatred
for free markets and capitalism, I think. I believe it is because of
the widespread acceptance through ignorance of unethical profiteering on
intellectual property of a unique nature. GPL is necessary. The
restrictions it places *should be* unnecessary. (Because software
'wants to be free', in the metaphor which I believe is attributed to
RMS). They are made necessary by *you* and your reasoning; they would
be unnecessary if everyone worked to develop good software at a profit
without profiteering. You say they're not necessary because developers
should be able to co-opt GPL software as they can many other kinds of
open source. I say they're not necessary because people shouldn't need
a license to stop them from profiteering on someone else's intellectual
work.
In practice, it turns out they do, according to you. Luckily, I think
you over-state the case. Nobody needs GPL code as much as you pretend,
and yet people use it much more freely and easily than you pretend, as
well.
[...]
>>Anybody producing GPL code would have to pay for a license from the
>>patent holder, I would assume.
>
>But that license would have to permit unlimited redistribution
>and modification of the patented code (effectively a non-exclusive
>re-licensing arrangement) and would likely be extremely expensive
>or impossible to obtain.
No it wouldn't. It wouldn't have to say a damn thing, since that
license isn't GPL. GPL is a copyright license, not a patent license.
Nobody but you is trying to apply GPL to patents. Did you realize
that's not possible?
[...I'll stop here, if that's the case...]
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 00:08:31 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 12 Jul 2000
[...]
>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.
But you see, Les, that's because nobody could ever come up with the
exact same story without ever knowing about the prior art.
I see what you're saying, though. The same thing couldn't be true of
the non-literary simplicity of software. But in that case, it wouldn't
be an infringement, you are correct.
That might be interesting some day to watch play out in court. But the
chance that someone is going to happen to come up out of the blue with a
perfect replica of a copyrighted work containing an working
implementation of a patented process is more remote than you might
believe, to be sure.
This is an argument against the facile 'clean room' theft of
intellectual property, not the use of patent to overthrow copyright.
--
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
******************************
