Linux-Advocacy Digest #808, Volume #27 Thu, 20 Jul 00 08:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway? (Jacques Guy)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Phillip Lord)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Phillip Lord)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Phillip Lord)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen) (Jacques Guy)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Phillip Lord)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Phillip Lord)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451746 (Jacques Guy)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen) (Jacques Guy)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: Advocacy and Programmers... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix (Ulrich Woelfel)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:10:58 +1000
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8l6m0a$l5v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Stuart Fox wrote in message <8l6j3t$jfr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >
> >"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8l6a6j$goa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> Did you not hear of the first large ship the US Navy ran on NT? There
> >were
> >> several hundred NT machines running everything on board, all networked
> >> together. Shortly after leaving harbour, the network crashed and
brought
> >> every single computer on board to a standstill. The ship was dead in
the
> >> water for over two hours before they got essential services back
online.
> >And
> >> the cause? It was traced back to someone entering a "0" in the wrong
> >place
> >> in a PC in the stores - the resulting "divide by zero" error killed the
> >> ship.
> >
> >So do explain to us all how a poor app is NT's fault?
> >
> A poor app is not NT's fault - that a poor app is able to crash the
machine
> it is running on, never mind the whole network, is NT's fault.
And there is about zero evidence that it did either.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 11:08:50 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway?
Tymm Pammar wrought:
[spin]
Nevva miend wot goud ol Tymm roguht, heerz trewth
fowwx:
Lie-nux sux
butt...
Win blowz!
Wytch wood yew rartharav? Ahed jobb four frea, ore
abloejob five err... four beeg bux?
PS. Mr Palmer's kind assistance in accessing his
spell-checker is hereby gratefully acknowledged.
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: 20 Jul 2000 12:14:50 +0100
>>>>> "Phil" == phil hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> My own feeling is that commands should all have a switch which
>> allows the export as XML, and that each command would keep its
>> DTD somewhere standard. Unix excels at pipelining, and small
>> commands, but these sometimes break when the output format
>> changes, and the parsing breaks down. Structure the output into
>> XML would make parsing a lot easier, and more robust,
Phil> And more complicated.
No I disagree. If lots of commands used XML, then you could
make a nice standard API for handling it. One shared library is all it
would need.
>> but would still have most of the advantages of flat output.
Phil> With XML, you'd have to make sure the DTDs were all
Phil> understandable by the next stage in the pipe. Still, it'd
Phil> probably be useful for some tasks. I'd probably still prefer
Phil> ascii for most tasks, e.g: $ ps auxw | grep netscape
I guess when I say "pipelining" I also mean the more generic
task of sticking one thing inside another (say for instance wrapping a
GUI around a command line). At the moment these things are fairly
sensitive to small changes in output. So for instance take something
like "ps -eu". Now I am not a great expert at parsing but that does
not look like context free output. With XML it would automatically
be. Further it would be more extensible. Say you were interested in
PID's for those process taking over 10% of the CPU. Easy enough to
parse out at the moment, but if the format of ps changes even slightly
things could get screwed. With XML the chances are that even if the
DTD changes, the tags representing PID and %CPU would still be there
and still the same.
I guess in a nutshell what I am saying is that a formal
specification of the output of commands would be great. As a biologist
I can categorically say that trying to link programs with heterogenous
output formats all of which are liable to change, most of which are
hard to parse, and most are not context free is a real pain in the
ass.
Phil
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: 20 Jul 2000 12:16:33 +0100
>>>>> "Colin" == Colin R Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Colin> Phillip Lord wrote:
>> >>>>> "Rich" == Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
Rich> On 19 Jul 2000, Phillip Lord wrote:
>> >> Well you have me there. What precisely does the National >>
>> Institute of Health have to do with this?
>>
Rich> Just in case this isn't a troll, NIH == Not Invented Here.
>> I never troll.
>>
>> Now I am confused, as I do not see how the acronym applies to
>> what I said. Am I being dense? Or is it just late in the day?
Colin> Perhaps Tore Lund is saying that he is glad that Linus would
Colin> consider ideas from other operating systems, rather than
Colin> rejecting them because they were not first implemented in
Colin> Linux.
Ah. Well that is fair enough I suppose, although I don't
see how it applies to what I was saying...
Phil
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: 20 Jul 2000 12:20:08 +0100
>>>>> "Christopher" == Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The original post was about potential improvements to unix in the
>> future. The suggestion was to have python (or similar) as the
>> scripting language. It would be nice to replace sh scripts with
>> some better language.
Christopher> The problem is that despite the fact that almost all
Christopher> the new scripting languages (save for csh) are "better"
Christopher> than sh, they're not compellingly better than _each
Christopher> other_. And the differences elicit religious wars :-).
True enough. Although I think that simple inertia and legacy
is a strong enough force to keep things from changing.
Phil
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 11:29:26 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen)
tholenbot wrote, quoting Timan and Slava Pestov
time and again:
[never mind what he wrote, shouldn't we pass the
hat around to buy him a long-sleeved pajama top, though?]
Leave those two young people to their budding tryst,
you miserable bot with a thpeech impediment!
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 20 Jul 2000 12:26:43 +0100
>>>>> "Jay" == Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jay> On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 21:54:52 +0100, phil hunt
Jay> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> One measure that would help achieve this would be to invalidate
>> clauses in contracts of employment which attempt to limit an
>> employee's future employment once he has left his present
>> employer.
Jay> At least in right-to-work states such as Texas, these contracts
Jay> have been severely limited already, on the basis that an
Jay> employer has no right to limit someone's employability. (See?
Jay> Unions have their definite disavantages even for working
Jay> people.)
Did you expect anything in this society to work universally
towards the good. But even as corrupt and right wing as the union movement
has become, almost without fail working people are much better off in
a union than out of it.
Phil
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 20 Jul 2000 12:28:07 +0100
>>>>> "Phil" == phil hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It is certainly true that having "a sellers" employment market
>> is empowering for people. The problem is that the large capital
>> power blocks will try and turn this around. In the UK for
>> instance Thatcher introduced "wage controls" by deliberately and
>> premeditatedly forcing 2 million extra people into unemployment.
Phil> I doubt if it was that deliberate. Govmts typically want to
Phil> get re-elected, and fucking up the economy doesn't help.
We have quite a few leaked documents and personal testimonies
which suggest that it was deliberate. The point is that increasing
unemployment can actually do wonders for the economy, and make many
people better off, although not of course the poor sods on the shit
heap.
>> In a democratic society I can see no justification for
>> maintaining a feudal hierarchy in the work place. "Companies"
>> should all be publicly accountable and controlled not by
>> directors
Phil> If shareholders don't control their companies, why would
Phil> anyone invest in a capital-intensive speculative venture?
Share holders do not make a company publically accountable,
and do not make a democracy, any more than consumerism does.
Phil
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 11:35:18 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451746
tholen the bot wrote:
> Here's today's Tinman digest:
> 1> [usual fu snipped to save space]
> What alleged "fu", Tinman?
Fu Manciu. You don't know who fu Manciu is,
ThtolenBot? Ask Toto (ma anche lui e morto).
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 11:42:51 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen)
I wrote to tholenbot:
> Leave those two young people to their budding tryst,
> you miserable bot with a thpeech impediment!
Sorry Tinman, sorry Slava, I should have written:
Leave those two young *bots* -- not *people*.
Just the old anthropocentric chauvinist pig
raising his ugly head... old habits dye hard...
sorry... honest!
(No, the there is no misspelling there, just
a veiled reference to an old joke).
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 07:42:14 -0400
On 20 Jul 2000, Lee Hollaar wrote:
> I wrote:
>> "Fixed" in this case does not mean 'unchanging'.
> "A work is 'fixed' in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment
> in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is
> sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced,
> or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration."
> 17 USC 101. (Try to read it this time, Max.)
>
> That means that something on a blackboard is fixed, even though I can
> erase it or change it at some later time, but the image on the screen
> of a movie theater isn't, because it is just transitory.
Then it would seem logical to me that when a source code file is saved to
disk, it is considered 'fixed', even if it is not "perceived, reproduced,
or otherwise communicated" because it COULD be. Correct?
-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] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 20 Jul 2000 11:43:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Isaac) writes:
>I'm beginning to think that you are a stalking horse created by
>Lee Hollaar to get the rest of us to do our homework.
Not even I, in my most perverse momemts, could dream up somebody as
confused and confusing as T. Max.
The problem seems to be that he things there should be some universal
truths that govern the rules for intellectual property. And if he has
read the copyright statute, which I doubt, he feels that it doesn't
meet his standards. That's why he complains about the inadequacies
of definitions that come right from the law (not from a dictionary,
with multiple definitions to select).
Anyone who has read the copyright statutes, especially Sections 108
through 121, realize that it is filled with special provisions to
protect or exempt certain groups, most of these being very ad hoc.
For example, I can lease something that I purchased, unless it is
computer software or a phonorecord. See 17 USC 109.
As for responding to T. Max's long, rambling posts, I'm just going
to post something short when he puts forth a particular howler.
I suggest that the rest of us try to ignore him, too.
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:49:07 +0100
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8l6m0a$l5v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Stuart Fox wrote in message <8l6j3t$jfr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >
> >"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8l6a6j$goa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> Did you not hear of the first large ship the US Navy ran on NT? There
> >were
> >> several hundred NT machines running everything on board, all networked
> >> together. Shortly after leaving harbour, the network crashed and
brought
> >> every single computer on board to a standstill. The ship was dead in
the
> >> water for over two hours before they got essential services back
online.
> >And
> >> the cause? It was traced back to someone entering a "0" in the wrong
> >place
> >> in a PC in the stores - the resulting "divide by zero" error killed the
> >> ship.
> >
> >So do explain to us all how a poor app is NT's fault?
> >
> A poor app is not NT's fault - that a poor app is able to crash the
machine
> it is running on, never mind the whole network, is NT's fault.
It was never NT's fault. An app dying is an app dying, not matter what OS
it's on. If the app that's controlling your ship dies, the ship is
uncontrollable. Doesn't matter what the OS does at this stage. And there
was never any mention of blue screens/nt failure. It was always an app
failure.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 20 Jul 2000 11:51:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Austin
Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>On 20 Jul 2000, Lee Hollaar wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> "Fixed" in this case does not mean 'unchanging'.
>> "A work is 'fixed' in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment
>> in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is
>> sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced,
>> or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration."
>> 17 USC 101. (Try to read it this time, Max.)
>>
>> That means that something on a blackboard is fixed, even though I can
>> erase it or change it at some later time, but the image on the screen
>> of a movie theater isn't, because it is just transitory.
>
>Then it would seem logical to me that when a source code file is saved to
>disk, it is considered 'fixed', even if it is not "perceived, reproduced,
>or otherwise communicated" because it COULD be. Correct?
Right. It has to be in a form that "PERMIT[s] it to be perceived,
reproduced, or otherwise communicated". And you get to use a device,
like a computer, in that perception.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 20 Jul 2000 11:55:39 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Austin
Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Then it would seem logical to me that when a source code file is saved to
>disk, it is considered 'fixed', ...
Even when it is stored in RAM before writing to a disk. In _MAI v. Peak_,
the Ninth Circuit said that even though the contents of RAM goes away
when the power is removed, it's sufficiently permanent that fixation
occurs and a copy is made. That decision was ratified by Congress by
the creation of a special exception for RAM copies used in computer
maintenance, an addition to 17 USC 117.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Advocacy and Programmers...
Date: 20 Jul 2000 11:57:01 GMT
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 22:05:38 -0700, Pan wrote:
>doesn't mean that i don't know how to fork a process or that I don't
>know what the fork a process is.
I am just setting the record straight -- and pointing out that fork
is not at all a perl thing, it's a UNIX thing, and as such, it's
supported by every decent language with a UNIX port. I was not trying
to be a smart-ass.
> Nor does it mean that I am not
>familiar with oo methods
You don't know what "privacy" means and you claim to understand OO ?
If perl is the only "OO" language you're familiar with, you will not
have a very good handle on OO.
> or the strengths and weaknesses of a language,
>like perl, that I work with probably 4-5 hours every day.
Strengths and weaknesses are all relative. It's difficult to appraise
the strengths and weaknesses of a language unless you have some experience
with other languages. Most of the "advantages" of perl you discussed are
also "advantages" that other languages have, for example python.
> Why don't you
>quit being so arrogant?
I'm not trying to be arrogant. Why don't you quit being so defensive ?
No one's perfect. I'm still learning too, you know (-;
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Ulrich Woelfel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 13:47:04 +0200
Isn't there another newsgroup where you can continue your discussion? I think
this is somehow the wrong place...
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 08:03:37 -0400
[No snips...]
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Isaac wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:51:59 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The opinion that linking a program to a library means the program is a
>> derivative work, when it wasn't before, is merely a matter of how the
>> intellectual property was constructed. Arguments over which author
>> contributed which idea to a final work might be heated, but they are not
>> an issue for copyright law. Neither is the construction of software.
>> If your code is only nine tenths of a book, but the library is the final
>> chapter, saying the library was written first doesn't mean the book
>> isn't derivative of the chapter. The only difference is a chapter can't
> Even if the law explicitly says that the order does matter? If it doesn't
> matter to you that the law says that derivative works are based on
> pre existing works, then I suspect we don't have common ground on which
> to discuss this issue.
>
> Here is a portion of 17 USC 101
> Section 101 has the definitions of a couple of terms we are discussing.
> The indented text is from the statute.
>
> A work is ''created'' when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord
> for the first time; where a work is prepared over a period of
> time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular
> time constitutes the work as of that time, and where the work has
> been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a
> separate work.
> In other words thoughts and code existing only in someone's mind
> is not a work under the law.
> A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more
> preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement,
> dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound
> recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any
> other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or
> adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations,
> elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent
> an original work of authorship, is a ''derivative work''.
> In other words a derivative work must be based one or more prexisting,
> fixed works. Not based on a work described verbally to another programmer,
> and not one fixed only after a given work is completed.
One of Max's other straw men is that because the source code is
protected, the binaries can't be. Well ... no. The definition of
'derivative work' applies to translations, too -- and the compiling of
software is translation into machine code. Therefore, the binary is a
clear derivative of the source code and is protected under copyright as
much as the source.
-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
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
