Linux-Advocacy Digest #663, Volume #27 Fri, 14 Jul 00 01:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
New Linux user & damn glad!! (richard harlos)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Jeff Szarka)
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! (Mike Stump)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 04:05:16 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Logical arguments cannot reasonably rest purely on dictionary
>definitions. Surely you people are smart enough to realize that.
I don't see why. I am first a CS type person. I sure you can see a
but of this in my answer. I like things like logic and philosophy. A
current unabridged dictionary is a fascinating tool. All the online
dictionaries I've read are sad, very sad shadows of what a dictionary
should be.
They are what we can reasonably agree on about what our language is.
Menaing, if it isn't in there, we haven't achieved consensus, or maybe
it just isn't current.
Once you throw in domain dictionaries (which hardly ever exist), one
can achieve a more interesting sense of completeness.
Anyway, let's not let this side the real conversation (even if I can't
recall it offhand anymore).
------------------------------
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 00:15:37 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Lee Hollaar from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 13 Jul 2000 13:36:51
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>Quoting Lee Hollaar from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 12 Jul 2000 11:53:44
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>>>
>>>>It is not necessary to modify or distribute the re-used code for the
>>>>U.S. Government Patent and Trademark Office to consider your work a
>>>>derivative, either. RMS is just a bit more stringent in applying that
>>>>point to ensure he maintains control of his intellectual work.
>>>
>>>Just what does the United States Patent and Trademark Office have to
>>>do with considering your work a derivative?
>>>
>>>Just asking ...
>>
>>As far as I know, they define the concept. I'm possibly
>>over-simplifying, as the statutes aren't really the Office. But they
>>develop legal guidelines for what might be considered derivative, and
>>the courts interpret them when they apply the law, AFAIK. If not, then
>>assume I was speaking rhetorically.
>
>The Patent and Trademark Office is responsible for (not too suprisingly)
>patents and trademarks. Copyrights are handled by the Copyright Office,
>which is part of the Library of Congress.
>
>Their circular on derivative works basically restates the language of
>the statutue. You can find it at --
> http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ14.pdf
>
>While a court may look to something the Copyright Office has written,
>the court has the ultimate authority in interpreting the law.
>
>You really don't know what you are talking about, do you?
Yes, I do. But I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't say
"The PTO clearly and completely defines what is and is not derivative
works in software copyright cases." I was merely mirroring Les's
phrasing to point out that RMS doesn't do that, either, as he indicated
that this was part of his reasoning on some other matter who's context's
been snipped.
Do you mean to say that there is something important and specific about
defining derivative works in that discussion in this Acrobat file? If
so, could you summarize what it is? It isn't of issue to me, but some
of the developers here seem confused. Normally, I would expect that
this definition only "exists" in the abstract, as defined by the
interpretation of precedent in any one particular trial. That is
probably one of the reasons they're so confused on these issues.
--
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]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 21:06:00 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >I know Windows crashes are random. But I also know that given
> >two companies with the same number of computers and these conditions:
> >Company1 Company2
> >Knowledgeable Admin Computer illeterate dumbass admin
> >Solid hardware Cheapest hardware money can buy
> >Restricted users Users have free reign
> >
> >Company 2 is going to have more crashing and difficulties with their
> >systems than Company1. This is all I was saying. If you take that to
> >mean that I am blaming my problems on someone else, I have no idea where
> >to go from here.
>
> What you said above was incorrect. You don't quite seem to understand
> what it means to be "random". I realize that you only want to consider
> practical cases, and will believe that I'm just being pedantic and
> rhetorical and trying to talk about theoretical cases, but I'm not.
> This is the crux of the issue, and why we've gone back and forth so
> long, and why what you're saying seems to make sense, and why what I'm
> saying does not. This is not theory; this is, essentially, the result
> of careful (though undocumented, because it is not empirical)
> observation.
In electronics we have a term for failures that happen that cannot be
predicted when it would be likly to happen so that so that it is very
difficult to quantify for analysis of its cause that terms is "intermittent
failures". Equipment that is prone to Intermittent failures is often
referred to as being flaky and as having flaky behaviour. Poor design, poor
quality control in manufacture, poor maintenance, user abuse are some
factors that are know to contribute to the increase of the probability
intermittent failures. Since intermittent failues often seem to happen at
random times. They are also know as random failures.
Since the computer field grew out of mathematics and the electronics fields,
the pioneers and many of those in the field of computers today have a solid
background in electronics and/or mathematics. As a result of this, it has
inherited many terms from both of those fields.
A major failue in computers is know as a crash, because early disk and drum
storage devices had a tendancy to have their head crash against the media
when the system had a major system failue, causing the destruction of the
storage media, and ofther the heads as well.
Taking the electronics term "random failures" which is a common subsitute
for the elsctronics term "intermittent failures" and replacing the word
"failures" with the word "crashes" derived from the history of computer, we
come up with the term "random crashes".
Since the computer term "random crashes" derived from the electronics term
"intermittent failures" there are computer counterparts for the contributing
factors for electronics intermittent failures. The maintenance of the
electronics maps to the computer administration. Design and quality control
in manufacture maps to the computer hardware quality. user abuse come
across to computers unchanged, except that it is not just physical abuse any
more. Result of this process of interiting terms, maping of terms, and
diriving term from computer history, Nathaniel Jay Lee's examples and
conclusions above are absolutly correct.
The problem here is that you seem to be trying to apply the standard english
deffinitions of words to interpret the meanings of terms in the computer
field when the standard english deffinitions don't apply. If you were to
rely on the english deffinitions alone, my what a zoo would exist in your
computer! Bisons, Daemons, Bugs, Gremlins, Yaccs, Gophers, etc! And they
would be taken care of by Archie, Veronica, Jughead, Satan, Santa, Courtney,
Beowulf, Gaberial.
------------------------------
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 00:19:14 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 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.
Thanks for failing to be any help whatsoever in identifying the issues
which *you'd* like to bring up.
[.]
--
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 00:21:54 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 13 Jul 2000
00:12:18 -0500
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>>All commercial
>>>>software is distributed with two different licenses, in much the same
>>>>way you describe. They're called "developer license" or "OEM license"
>>>>and "End User License Agreements", respectively.
>>>
>>>But the purpose of applying these licenses is to apply certain
>>>restrictions - in perl's case it is to avoid them.
>>
>>I was hoping for a response that would give some comparison to the two
>>license dichotomy, not a value judgement on the motivations of the
>>authors in choosing their license strategy.
>
>So read them. [...]
Did you notice where I said I was hoping for a comparison to the two
license dichotomy? Apparently you didn't realize that you were supposed
to be the one to provide that, in your response, according to my wishes.
I'm not interested in knowing what the licenses say. I want to know
what you think they say, and what impact that has on their use and the
marketing of software. If you have nothing to contribute, though...
[.]
--
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 00:25:09 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Thu, 13 Jul 2000
[...]
>You say that there is no likelyhood of libraries being GPL, despite,
>say, REALITY, and I am the one that's making bad rethoric? Excuse
>me while I puke.
And you say you're an engineer? You might work well with computer code,
but you don't parse human language too well. My apologies if English is
a second language for you, but "no likelyhood" does not mean "can never
happen". If there are examples of GPL libraries, it doesn't refute the
notion that there is no likeklyhood in any given context, particularly
the one that was being discussed, that libraries would be GPLd.
If nothing else, as they say in the commodities scams "past performance
is not an indication of future returns".
--
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] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 04:29:06 GMT
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 04:05:16 GMT, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Logical arguments cannot reasonably rest purely on dictionary
>>definitions. Surely you people are smart enough to realize that.
>
>I don't see why. I am first a CS type person. I sure you can see a
The obvious ones would be the fact that languages are
more organic than dictionaries would lead to believe
and quite often there is more than one relevant dictionary
with potential conflicts in competing definitions.
A good example of this would be "monopoly".
[deletia]
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to build
their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 04:30:05 GMT
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 00:42:34 GMT, Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Phillip Lord wrote:
>> 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.
>
>The *democracy* of the market cares very much about your personal
>freedom of choice. Companies are desperately trying to show you a
>little leg so that you'll take them home.
Those companies still have to pay the rent and deal with
market barriers before they can even start to think about
"showing you some leg".
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to build
their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: richard harlos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: New Linux user & damn glad!!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 04:37:22 GMT
Hi, all.
I'm just about messin' my shorts for joy!
I installed Slackware 7.1 (BigSlack, the UMSDOS install) on my PC and am
now happily up and running on the 'net.
Aside from a little tweaking to get my cheap, ISP-supplied network card
enabled, I'm good to go.
And even though it's going to take some time to learn my way around X
and Linux in general, I'm much happier to be *doing* something about
my dissatisfaction with Microsoft product (by not using them anymore
than necessary!) than just *talking* about it.
Don't flame this newbie too bad :)
richard harlos
------------------------------
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 00:38:12 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Thu, 13 Jul 2000
16:03:33 GMT
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
>> [...]
>> >> 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.
>>
>> ...which is meant to indicate that no rules are universal, and so you
>> cannot use one exception to indicate that a rule doesn't exist.
>
>Excuse me, but romans were not idiots.
If only you could lay the same claim. You're starting to be
recognizable by name as being glitchy, if not clueless, Roberto. I'd
just thought I'd tell you, because I'm hoping you will help me learn
something, if you can.
>If that was the goal, then
>everyone could postulate anything as a rule, and whenever it fails,
>it wouldn't matter.
>
>Romans cared much more about logic than that,
Yes, apparently they cared more about logic than whatever that was you
just said. The ability to postulate rules does not indicate that the
rule exists. I said "one example cannot be used to indicate that a rule
doesn't exist". Two examples may be. Three examples might even be
considered to be a *strong* indication that a rule doesn't exist, but
that would depend on the purported strength of the rule and the number
of examples available. When a rule fails, it is because an insufficient
proportion of examples fit it, not because somebody noticed that a few
don't. These aren't *laws* we're talking about, are they, but rules?
Was the latin word for law different, perhaps? I'd appreciate it if you
could post the original latin "the exception proves the rule", if you
have it so we could see. I could be wrong about that.
>Usually, it means that the exception either was not an exception because
>of some hidden fact, or that the rule should be changed to account for
>it.
No, it means when making logical deductions, one cannot assume that an
apparent exception to the rule is not illusory. Similarly, in modern
science (which we can thank the Romans for in some large part, I think),
the failure or success of one experiment does not disprove an empirical
theory.
>For example: if 1/x can not be derived at 0, that meant that the rule
>"all functions can be derived" was not a good rule, and that it had
>to be changed, or discarded.
You are again thinking of rules, like whether something would or would
not be chosen to be LGPL or GPL, for mathematical *laws*. For practical
purposed, if the vast majority of functions can be derived, then that's
a rule, regardless of the fact that it has exceptions.
--
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: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 00:37:34 -0400
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:29:29 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>
>> Say for example you had added an ATA66 card into your system and a new
>> hard drive. Ghosting an old version of Linux with out drivers would
>> fail too.
>
>Are you implying that Aaron Ginn doesn't realize that a backup
>created on Monday won't account for modifications made on Wednesday?
No, I'm implying that certain hardware drivers can make an OS not
start if the hardware is no longer present. Adding say... a sound card
would have caused the image to prompt for drivers.
------------------------------
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 21:38:10 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> 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.
But the Mac had half that amount of memory.
-Peter
------------------------------
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 00:43:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 23:31:11 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] () from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12
>> [...]
>>> You seek to alter the argument by exploiting the potential
>>> ignorance of those involved.
>>
>>Ooh, I *like* that one.
>>
>>But now that you've got it copyrighted, I guess I need to ask permission
>>to use it in my derivative works, don't I?
>
> Actually, I disagree with the notion of a purely defacto
> copyright in general and especially when the expression
> in question is in an open public forum.
>
> Consider it bsdl as an attributed remark and PD otherwise. '-)
Amen, brother.
--
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 04:34:17 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You lie when you claim that Free Software is actually incompatible
>> with the construction of software where the author can use any
>> licence he pleases, keep the software secret and even make obscene
>> profits on it.
>
>Counterexample: BSD. The BSD license is, according to most folks, free, yet
>the BSD developers (some of whom you're calling liars in this very thread)
>cannot incorporate GPVed software in BSD and remain true to the goals of
>their project: a truly free, reusable system with none of the GPV's
>drawbacks.
A BSDL developer is free to use GPLed software in his programs. What
he is not free to do is to conspire to coopt the freedom that the GPL
brings with it.
------------------------------
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 04:41:43 GMT
In article <8ke0dd$2o80$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Why do you think removing the freedom to build works that are
>also derivatives of other licenses is in any way increasing
>freedom?
Duh! Because I want to see the software I run, and because I want to
edit the software I run and because I want to distribute the software
I run, I want to be able to sell the software I run and because I want
the next person in line to be able to do the same. I want this
freedom. This is freedomt to me.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 04:46:40 GMT
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 00:25:09 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Thu, 13 Jul 2000
> [...]
>>You say that there is no likelyhood of libraries being GPL, despite,
>>say, REALITY, and I am the one that's making bad rethoric? Excuse
>>me while I puke.
>
>And you say you're an engineer? You might work well with computer code,
It is actually quite common for engineers to be overyly
pedantic and to indulge in endless and heated debates over
various interpretations of minutia. Computer Science is one
of those areas where small differences can be quite significant.
>but you don't parse human language too well. My apologies if English is
>a second language for you, but "no likelyhood" does not mean "can never
>happen". If there are examples of GPL libraries, it doesn't refute the
>notion that there is no likeklyhood in any given context, particularly
>the one that was being discussed, that libraries would be GPLd.
>
>If nothing else, as they say in the commodities scams "past performance
>is not an indication of future returns".
[deletia]
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to build
their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
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: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 04:50:29 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 21:38:10 -0700, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>But the Mac had half that amount of memory.
That just shows that Apple likes to skimp on hardware while
overcharging their customers...
[deletia]
Under System 6 I wouldn't want to run a Mac in less than 2M.
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to build
their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
