Linux-Advocacy Digest #687, Volume #27 Fri, 14 Jul 00 21:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Marty)
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? (Christopher Browne)
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: Tinman digest, volume 2451741 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451741 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451741 (EdWIN)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Russ Allbery)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Russ Allbery)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 20:10:05 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Hyman Rosen in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>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.
>
>The money it produces comes from people who are exchanging it for
>something they get of equal value. The total amount of wealth
>increases because new things are brought forth that did not exist
>before.
New things can be brought forth out of nothing. Just make stuff up.
Something tells me it is the particular nature of the things, and the
difficulty involved in getting them even if you have wealth, which
defines property versus wealth. Assuming that is the discussion. The
total amount of "wealth" may magically increase and give rise to the
assumption of the source is 'creation'. But the wealth that people
accumulate can only come from two sources: they dug it out of the ground
or built it themselves (or expressed a work of authorship), or they got
it from someone else. And when one person gets many times more than any
other, there is no alternative, without magic, to the fact that he got
it from multiple other people. So then the question comes down to
relative amounts, and whether its profiting, which is ethical and
encouraged, and profiteering, which is unethical and shouldn't be
encouraged.
It is a value judgment. And everybody agrees on various 'equal values',
so you can't justify that to insist that a transaction is ethical any
more than you can use it to insist that all black people are better at
sports.
Sorry for butting in, I just thought I'd throw another random bit of
rhetoric onto there, like you guys did. What was it we were discussing,
anyway?
--
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: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 00:14:39 GMT
Karl Knechtel wrote:
>
> tinman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : > Tinman wrote:
> : >
> : > 1> Jumping into conversations again Karl? Cool, have fun!
> : >
> Thank you.
For what, Karl?
> I just hope the COLA people aren't mad at me,
Your hopes are irrelevant.
> in case I ever decide to start following that NG
What you might ever decide to start doing is irrelevant.
> (believe me, I'd *like* to, but CSMA eats up enough time as it is!)
Obviously not, as you have enough time to post to COOA, COLA, and COMSNTA as
well.
> : > Still posting for entertainment purposes, eh Tinman?
>
> : That's tinman. ('
>
> Still playing semantic games, tinman?
Who? Don't you mean "Tinman"?
> : And why else would I post?
>
> Don't you know?
How ironic, coming from someone who doesn't know.
> : > Not surprising,
> : > considering that you are being digestified.
>
> Illogical. Digestification is the result of posting for entertainment
> purposes, not the cause.
Evidence, please.
> : On the contrary. My polycarbonate exterior resists digestification.
>
> Meanwhile, I see you still have not provided any evidence of the existence
> of this alleged "polycarbonate exterior".
You are erroneously presupposing the existence of such evidence.
> How typical.
How typical of you to make such an erroneous presupposition.
> : --
>
> Incorrect.
See what he means?
> : ______
>
> Illogical.
Prove it, if you think you can.
> : tinman
>
> Non sequitur.
On what basis do you make this claim?
> ;)
How ironic.
> Karl Knechtel {:>
Irrelevant.
> da728 at torfree dot net
Taking made-up word lessons from Joe Malloy?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 00:19:33 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when [EMAIL PROTECTED]
would say:
>Ahh.. yet another linux user skirting the REAL issue by attacking my
>spelling.. Look PimpleDick..my post is not documentation therefore is
>not subject to scrutiny. The Linux Documentation Project on the other
>hand is representative of the operating system itself. THAT is the
>issue, not my spelling. If Document I cited is representative of the
>OS, then whoooo whoooo....no wonder it's so lame.
No, the LDP is representative of the LDP, and the LDP only.
The kernel developers are representative of the kernel developers.
Different organizations "doing their things" are representative of
themselves.
_YOU MAY PERCEIVE_ there to be some other representations, but from a
variety of perspectives, such representation is being explicitly
_disclaimed._
There _are_ some problems with the lack of centralized authority, but
there is widespread belief that the advantages of independence
outweigh the disadvantages.
What _you_ choose to believe about the merits or "lameness" of Linux
is _your_ problem.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/sgml.html>
Talk a lot, don't you?
------------------------------
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 20:21:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Peter Seebach in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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".
>
>This isn't entirely topical, but I'm not sure I buy your premise that the
>people "producing" do not get the benefits of that production. There are
>a number of issues:
>
>1. Arguably, people with capital *are* producing something - opportunities
>in which people can work to produce.
By the same logic, the people are producing an opportunity to
capitalize, so that can't be recompense, can it?
>2. Are you going to try to convince me that the standard of living for even
>the dismally poor today is *really* worse than what we had in the past? It's
>gonna be a really hard thing to convince me of.
It doesn't matter if for the poor it is worse than what we had in the
past. What matters is, is it as much better as the rich have it in the
present compared to the not-so-rich in the past? Other wise, your
system benefits the few at the expense of the many.
Look, you get down to brass tacks. We all know its some sort of curve,
right? The question is, is it a straight pyramid (idealization), a bell
curve, a sine wave, a power curve, what? You can interpret the numbers
however you want to graph them on many of these, and for each one, you
want to say what relationship parameters are good and what are bad, what
is an acceptable level of death do to disease, and how many years worth
of the lowest employee's income matches the days take for the highest,
how many people out of a million will have two houses, whether
retirement should be modest or independant. And then you throw them all
away because you're making too many value judgments that aren't yours to
make.
You gotta be fair up front. You can't save yourself in the end with
philosophy. There's profit, and then there's exploitation. The only
way to know that one is not the other is if *everyone* has access to
capital, a free market, and opportunity for education. And all three,
ideally, should be as unrestricted as possible. The wealth truly
belongs to society, we all have to admit that; it is civilization that
makes you different than a naked ape in a cave 200,000 years ago, and
nothing else. So the capital should be considered as fundamentally
common as the market and the education. I'm not saying that access to
capital is a monumental problem for the common man. I'm saying it is
way to trivial a problem for anyone else.
--
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 20:27:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Phillip Lord in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
> 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!).
Yes, I think that is the idea. Slow it down, give everyone a chance to
think about it. Humans are surprisingly civilized animals if they're
treated with respect, and even a little kindness. "Charity" is from the
same root as "Cheerfulness", isn't it? And the division of power is
well-founded on the principle that by the time anything gets passed a
committee in a political legislature, society will be well prepared for
it. In the worst cases, we've got the courts to catch us before we
fall.
But don't fool yourself. No, there *isn't* anything but the memory of a
scrap of paper to protect against tyranny of the majority. Nothing else
could serve the purpose any better, considering the words on that scrap
of paper.
--
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:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451741
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 00:33:26 GMT
Here's today's Tinman digest:
1> Typical invective.
What alleged invective, Tinman?
1> And the failure is yours.
Incorrect, given that you are the one who failed to recognize the
evidence I presented.
1> What alleged "evidence"?
See what I mean?
1> On the contrary.
Typical pontification.
2> If you mean me,
I do.
2> I have to ask if you're having reading comprehension problems again--
You're erroneously presupposing reading comprehension problems on my
part both previously and now, Tinman.
2> I didn't start this thread,
Irrelevant, given that I didn't say you did, Tinman.
2> nor did I choose the newgroups. ("
Irrelevant, given that I didn't say you did, Tinman. You were in it
before I was, however, so you are in a better position to pass on the
relevant reference.
2> Serious, to everyone out there, if you don't enjoy this kind of thing,
2> killfile Tholen as author and subjects with "Tholen" in them
How will that stop them from seeing your postings, or Thorne's, or
Malloy's, or Bennett's, or Pott's, or Amodeo's, all of whom post those
ridiculous articles allegedly for "entertainment" purposes?
2> (if you don't enjoy this kind of thing, that's safe, since I don't
2> think Dave's ever said anything worth reading except for grins),
What you think is irrelevant, Tinman. I've posted plenty that is
worth reading, such as the evidence for your lies. But you're too
busy entertaining yourself to seek out the truth.
2> and I will try to put that string in the subject of all posts
2> contained tholeny tholenisms and other tholenesque trivialae
2> (and encourage others to do so as well).
It would be simpler for you to just stop your "entertainment" at the
expense of other readers, Tinman.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451741
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 00:33:57 GMT
Today's Thorne digest:
1> The Thole Tholified:
1>
1> Then teach me, O Great Thole! Teach us all! Guide us to true
1> Tholiness.
2> The Thole Tholenated:
2>
2> Question not the Tholy One! Welcome the blessings of his
2> Tholing.
3> Useless only to those who have not been enlightened by the insight
3> granted through the Tholy Square Lens.
3>
3> Mock not the Tholy One, for his Wrath will bring His Tholy Assteriods
3> down upon you!
3>
3> May the Great Polisher of Square Lenses be ever watchful of passing
3> assteriods. Trouble him not with your untholy balderdash.
You still haven't learned, Thorne.
------------------------------
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 20:38:15 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Phillip Lord in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> 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.
I abhor the idea of 'a dollar is a vote'. That trivializes the issue
entirely. Your freedom of speech is your vote. And your free software,
to get back on topic. Put up or shut up, that's what the man said, I
think. Guts, not bucks.
> 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.
Have you read Paul Kurtz, Phillip? He has some very interesting
comments on what he calls 'the corporate mystique'. You aren't supposed
to question the value of amoral free-floating greed, you know. All 16
major media companies owning 90% of the publishing/media business say
so, in a lot of little ways, so it must be true. It must be true. It
must be true. It must be true. The purpose of business is to make
money. It must be true.
Screw that. The purpose of business is to be a virtual slave to the
poorest consumer in the marketplace. If we deign to allow them to make
one bit of profit, it is due to our great magnanimity and largesse. And
I say that as someone who's trying to sell something, just like everyone
else.
Well, not *just* like everyone else. I'm trying to be ethical about it.
I'm not sure how much tougher that makes it; I've never tried it the
other way.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 14 Jul 2000 19:37:39 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Software development, you overblown asinine twit,
>
><G>
>
>>is not putting
>>together Lego blocks.
>
>It should be. It will be when it has to be or you programmer's won't
>make any money. Three cheers for RMS. Next?
Build yourself a suspension bridge out of Lego blocks. Watch
it collapse when the wind blows. Repeat with a large software
project put together the same way.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 20:40:33 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Nathaniel Jay Lee in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>OK, we agree that Windows software is crap. We agree that in some cases
>you can slow down some of the bugs, some of the time, by following
>certain guidelines. You consider that waving dead chickens, I consider
>it common sense.
>
>As for your insistance that you didn't accuse me falsely of the things I
>listed above:
If you'll forgive me, Nathaniel, if that's the best I'm going to get,
then I'm giving up. Thanks for your time, I've learned a lot. I'm done
now.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 14 Jul 2000 19:41:32 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
Of course he is free to use GPL'd code for himself, but if he
distributed anything as restricted as anything containing GPL
components, he would no longer be a BSDL developer.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 14 Jul 2000 19:46:56 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
This is just as possible with the X license, the Perl license, the
BSD License and any number of less restricted licenses as
with the GPL, so your response doesn't apply to the question.
The GPL doesn't 'make' the works you like appear any more than
the other licenses do. All it does is prohibit end users from
having many other useful choices.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451741
From: EdWIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 17:53:46 -0700
The Tholy One Tholenfied:
>Today's Tholenfication:
>
>1> The Thole Tholified:
>1>
>1> Then teach me, O Great Thole! Teach us all! Guide us to
true
>1> Tholiness.
>
>2> The Thole Tholenated:
>2>
>2> Question not the Tholy One! Welcome the blessings of his
>2> Tholing.
>
>3> Useless only to those who have not been enlightened by the
insight
>3> granted through the Tholy Square Lens.
>3>
>3> Mock not the Tholy One, for his Wrath will bring His Tholy
Assteriods
>3> down upon you!
>3>
>3> May the Great Polisher of Square Lenses be ever watchful of
passing
>3> assteriods. Trouble him not with your untholy balderdash.
>
>You still haven't learned, Thorne.
>
Have mercy, O Great Thole! Spare me the fury of your
assteriods! Teach me the way of true Tholenment.
===========================================================
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 14 Jul 2000 17:55:07 -0700
In gnu.misc.discuss, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
Stanford has a license for the on-line version of the Oxford English
Dictionary, which I find invaluable. Unfortunately, it appears that
individual licenses are $550 a year, probably outside of the budget of
anyone other than a serious lexicographer. :/
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
------------------------------
From: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 14 Jul 2000 17:57:46 -0700
In gnu.misc.discuss, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The word "virtual" translates, in modern parlance, and particularly
>> technical jargon, directly, entirely, and without exception, the word
>> "not".
> Wrong.
> Virual memory you claim is not memory, but not memory is more
> unqualified. A catfish is not memory, yet saying a catfish is virtual
> memory doesn't seem quite right to me.
It would be far more accurate to say that "virtual" is roughly equivalent
to "simulated."
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 21:05:50 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Nathaniel Jay Lee in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Yes it is and that was the original topic of my "Bit-Twiddler" post. I
>> was not talking about programmers or techno-geeks, I was speaking
>> about the average user who grew up and suffered with DOS, OS/2 or
>> early versions of Windows. Folks who had no choice but to learn how
>> things worked, at least at an elementary level.
>>
>> The state of average computing folks is quite sad today. They really
>> don't have a clue and this goes for many of the so called MSCE's as
>> well. If it's not in the book, they don't know it.
>>
>
>Man does this sound like my ex-boss. A user would bring him a problem
>and he would say, "That's not possible." They would say, "but that's
>what happened." He would say, "It's not possible, you are lieing." and
>that would be good enough for him. Of course, this lead to some of my
>frustration (and eventual leaving) in that they would then come to me
>and ask for help. I tried to be honest with them and show them what I
>could without talking down to them in the hopes that they would learn
>something from it. My boss found out about this and confronted me on
>numerous occassions telling me that I was making him look bad because I
>didn't back him up when he said, "That's not possible." I told him,
>"Sorry, I won't lie." Needless to say this was good enough to say I was
>not getting promoted.
Goddamn, Nate. I'm surprised you didn't hunt me down and punch me in
the face, given that story. Again, I will apologize. I was obviously
far too eager to pick on someone. Sorry it happened to be you. Ouch.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 14 Jul 2000 20:08:29 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>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.
I've brought the issue up in every posting I've made in this
thread, and as I pointed out this is just one specific example
of the larger problem. In case you really missed it the other
dozen times, the issue is that the GPL prevents many possible
uses of software and forces people to rewrite alternative freer
version for others.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
