Linux-Advocacy Digest #669, Volume #27 Fri, 14 Jul 00 08:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451740 (Ray Chason)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Phillip Lord)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Phillip Lord)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Phillip Lord)
Korean Linux ("David Brown")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
linux, of course!! (swingline_stapler)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Casper H.S. Dik - Network Security Engineer)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: linux, of course!! (Jacques Guy)
Re: Linux code going down hill (Timothy Murphy)
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? (Geoff Lane)
Re: Student run Linux server. (Pontus Lidman)
Re: Why use Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why use Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451740
Date: 14 Jul 2000 09:16:32 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Here's today's Tinman digest:
>
>1> Incorrect.
>
>Balderdash, given your failure to comprehend the evidence
>presented.
>
>1> You're merely demonstrating your difficulty in presenting any
>1> evidence.
>
>Incorrect, given that I presented it multiple times.
>
>1> On the contrary, my answer was quite appropriate.
>
>Illogical, given that you didn't provide an answer, therefore one
>cannot assess whether it was appropriate or not.
And this is on topic for any of the above groups because....
(Followups set)
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
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 23:42:59 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:51:57 GMT...
...and Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Preemptive multitasking can, if decently implemented, do everything
> > CMT does, and it is more stable because it protects you from buggy
> > programs.
>
> Not by itself it can't.
>
> You left out the other half of the PM/PM duo: protected memory.
Of course protected memory makes it better, but the issue here is not
about processes crashing or stepping on each other's toes, but
simply about processes hanging.
Even a process with perfect memory management can hang -- for example
if it does a wait for an unavailable I/O resource that doesn't time
out.
mawa
--
Gordon's Restatement of Newman's Corollary to Godwin's Law:
Libertarianism (pro, con, and internal faction fights) is *the*
primordial netnews discussion topic. Anytime the debate shifts
somewhere else, it must eventually return to this fuel source.
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 14 Jul 2000 11:52:45 +0100
>>>>> "Kenneth" == Kenneth P Turvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Kenneth> On 13 Jul 2000 14:49:36 +0100, Phillip Lord
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.
Kenneth> I would argue that a limited constitutional republic, like
Kenneth> the ones you and I live under, is the best way we have
Kenneth> found to date to protect those rights.
Yes but the constitution is defined by the government, which
at least in theory anyway, is representative of the majority. So the
majority therefore has the right to decide which aspects of life it
does not have the right to regulate.
So in what sense does a constitution protect against this
"tyranny of the majority". All it does is slow things down, by
division of power (you need several steps to pass "unconstitutional
laws". First you have to change the constitution!).
Phil
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 14 Jul 2000 11:57:15 +0100
>>>>> "Hyman" == Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hyman> 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.
Hyman> The *democracy* of the market cares very much about your
Hyman> personal freedom of choice. Companies are desperately trying
Hyman> to show you a little leg so that you'll take them home.
There is no democracy in the market. The closest that it gets
is consumerism and as there is a several million fold difference
between the ability to spend between the different members of
society, its a poor sort of democracy, if its any sort of democracy at
all.
As for caring about my personal choice, most companies that I
know of are trying to increase their market share, preferable by
putting other companies out of business, and move as close towards
monopoly as they can get away with. Does this increase personal
choice? Not as far as I can see.
Phil
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 14 Jul 2000 11:59:08 +0100
>>>>> "Hyman" == Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hyman> Phillip Lord wrote:
>> But this is wholly different from the property that earns money
>> for the owner. Land in excess for instance of what a person needs
>> for their life. The money that this produces for the owner comes
>> from somewhere, and from someone's hard work. But not the owners.
Hyman> The money it produces comes from people who are exchanging it
Hyman> for something they get of equal value. The total amount of
Hyman> wealth increases because new things are brought forth that
Hyman> did not exist before.
Wealth is created by production is what you are saying. Yes.
But those with large amounts of capital get the benefits of this
production, not the people who are responsible for that
production. "To those who have, shall more be given".
Phil
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Korean Linux
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 13:00:42 +0200
Does anyone know what Linux distributions are best for Korean speakers? I
know that many distributions have at least some support for Korean, but
there must be some that have more Korean support than others. Does anyone
have any pointers to appropriate websites, either of distributions or Korean
linux sites? Failing that, I would also be interested in Chinese (written
Korean and Chinese have a lot in common, so there might be a fair amount of
overlap) or Japenese (my Korean friend also speaks Japenese).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 14 Jul 2000 11:02:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump) writes:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>The FSF would be terribly foolish to try to enforce a RIPEM policy in
>>court. They would surely lose, and do great damage to the GPL. If the
>>FSF ever decides to sue over the GPL, it will be over a blatant
>>violation, not a subtle one.
>
>Surely you have no clue what the FSF is or does or can do. Hint, hang
>around here for another decade or two, hang around the FSF's lawyer
>in court, watching him loose the first round of a case, undeterred,
>fully prepared to go to the Count of Last Resort if necessary, spend
>time with rms talking about stuff.
>
>After you do this, then come back here with another assessment. I'd
>be curious to see if it differs from your original one.
Wow! That's really impressive.
But can you cite one case where the FSF has litigated the issue in
court and a judge has decided it?
I don't know of one, but would like to read the decision if there is
one.
Or do we have to "hang around here for another decade or two"?
------------------------------
Subject: linux, of course!!
From: swingline_stapler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 04:00:04 -0700
The furor over teetotalism has been an acutely frustrating
cultural phenomenon: pregnant with great possibility, touching
on vital and fascinating issues, yet initially formulated in a
one-sided and intransigent manner that will infringe upon our
most important constitutional rights quicker than you can double-
check the spelling of "saccharogalactorrhea". What's important
to note, however, is that Linux's prognoses share many of the
same characteristics. And that's why I feel compelled to say
something about chauvinistic gits. According to Linux, anyone
who points this out is guilty of spreading lies, smears, and
obscurantism. But there's the rub; if I try really, really hard,
I can almost see why Linux would want to start wars, ruin the
environment, invent diseases, and routinely do a hundred other
things that kill people. Linux can write anything it wants about
how things would be different were we to give into its demands
and let it pervert human instincts by suppressing natural feral
constraints and encouraging abnormal patterns of behavior, but
the last time I told its cronies that I want to turn random,
senseless violence into meaningful action, they declared in
response, "But honor counts for nothing." Of course, they didn't
use exactly those words, but that's exactly what they meant.
I don't object to Linux's allegations because the bad-tempered
nature of Linux's ideals distracts us from the real lessons we
could learn from a rigorous critique of its threats. I object
because there is something grievously wrong with those anti-
democratic wimps who rob, steal, cheat, and murder. Shame on the
lot of them! While this letter hasn't provided anything in the
way of a concrete plan of action, it may help us focus our
thinking a little better when we do work out a plan. For now, we
must weed out organizations like Linux that have deceived,
betrayed, and exploited us. I will honestly be happy to have
your help in this endeavor.
===========================================================
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Casper H.S. Dik - Network Security Engineer)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 14 Jul 2000 11:00:56 GMT
[[ PLEASE DON'T SEND ME EMAIL COPIES OF POSTINGS ]]
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Then other than buggy applications, there's no benefit to PMT, right?
>Except its easier for the engineers, and doesn't work the way I want
>when I *don't* have any idle time. What happens in PMT if I *don't*
>have idle time?
OSes without PMT are therefor useless for developers? Also
useless for multiuser. Runaway processes happen far too frequently;
I wouldn't want to reboot for them. CMT is also more expensive for
the CPU; it is constantly polling the OS whether it has something else
to do.
>If I don't have root access, I should be stuck, obviously. But how
>trivial is it to tell the system "I want this reniced whenever it is
>running"? How is the initial "nice" value determined? Is there an
>automatic re-nicing when I switch apps, or to not re-nice when I switch
>apps? I'd really like to know more about the details, and it might make
>me realize that my advocacy of autonomous or cooperative systems over
>external pre-emptive systems is not worth bothering about.
Solaris assigns a higher priority to applications that have the input
focus; this is what you could call the "foreground" application.
A PMT system can be made to change priorities automatically, giving you
the benefits of CMT without any of the disadvantages.
Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 14 Jul 2000 11:12:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>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.
So, let's try this again. You said that the USPTO somehow has something
to do with defining a "derivative work". I asked why you think they
have anything to do with that, see how it is a copyright concept and
they deal with patents and trademarks (hence, their name). I also
said that the Copyright Office had a circular on derivative works, but
that it just repeats what the statute said.
I never said that you said that 'The PTO clearly and completely defines".
I did ask why you think the PTO has ANYTHING to do with defining what
a derivative work is?
And I got my answer, from the nonsense that you subsequently posted.
You don't seem to know what you are talking about.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 11:19:15 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux, of course!!
swingline_stapler wrote:
> The furor over teetotalism has been an acutely frustrating
[snip]
Reads like "foggy". Post the source code, please?
(Wouldn't be many lines).
(Do an AltaVista search on "foggy". The source code is
available, in Turbo Pascal. It's somewhere on my hard
disk, but posting this sort of stuff being a no-no...)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Timothy Murphy)
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: 14 Jul 2000 12:25:12 +0100
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Are you talking about standard CD-ROM distribution published by
>the distributor (as opposed to some cheap-bytes CD you picked up
>at a local computer show?).
Assuming this is a jibe at cheapbytes,
I've used CDs from http://www.cheapbytes.com/
for the last 4 versions of RedHat,
and never had any problems.
The title of this thread, incidentally, is nonsense.
Linux code has been steadily improving over the years.
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tel: 086-233 6090
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geoff Lane)
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 11:55:34 +0100
In article <8kic9g$sqj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> --- 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.
You have, of course, contacted the maintainers of the docs and supplied your
suggested corrections?
--
/\ Geoff. Lane. /\ Manchester Computing /\ Manchester /\ M13 9PL /\ England /\
I would if I could but I can't but I might if I find I can later.
------------------------------
From: Pontus Lidman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Student run Linux server.
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 13:39:47 +0200
> >Of course, for the girls, replace "quake" with "The Care Bears Save
> >Christmas" :-)
> Speaking of the females of the Human species. Are there any
> non-violent games for us that work under Linux? I am not interested in
> blood, guts and gore (doom) or quake. As for your "care bears" quip. I
> don't think That exsists in linux anyway. Some girls like romance or
> mystery games.
There are some non-violent titles from Loki games,
http://www.lokigames.com. I can recommend Railroad Tycoon II, or the soon
to be released Sim City 3000.
--
Pontus Lidman, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Software Engineer
No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up.
Scene: www.dc-s.com | MUD: tyme.envy.com 6969 | irc: irc.quakenet.eu.org
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 11:41:59 GMT
In article <8kmd8i$eg1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Oh, I have no idea whether there is an RPM or not.
There isn't, I looked.
> However, I wonder how you can use that XF86 4.0.1 install as an
indication
> of linux "lacking" compared to Windows --- when in fact an equivalent
install
> wouldn't even be possible under Windows.
There's a driver for Windows 95/98 and there's a beta test one for
Windows 2000. So it is possible.
> I don't think replacing the GDI under Windows is something you'd do
with
> anything but a nice, packaged patch directly from Microsoft. And yet,
you
> download God knows what from God knows where, install it over
Mandrake,
> and then complain that things don't work anymore.
I got the kit from xfree86.org. Isn't that the right place?
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 11:44:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colclough) wrote:
> Thing is, like your webserver, the only reason they have not been re-
> installed is because they are never used. Machines that arn't used
don't
> need reinstalling :)
Incorrect, both machines are heavily used. The third machine is the one
that's running the file server/web server. That's the one lightly used,
that's the one that's been up since the 17th May.
--
---
Pete
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
******************************
