Linux-Advocacy Digest #204, Volume #28 Thu, 3 Aug 00 11:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux for Desktop, a missing app... (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux as embedded OS ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux as embedded OS (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Re: Linux as embedded OS (Perry Pip)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 10:01:13 -0400
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8m76pd$1rvd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> Chad Myers wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> > >
> > >> > > If Microsoft has such a good platform, then why are the servers
> > >> > > that come under the heaviest usage Unix machines?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > How come no Lose2000 machines?
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
> > >> >
> > >> > Now that's a compelling argument! Also completely false.
> > >> >
> > >> > Many corporations use WinNT and now Win2000 for their largest, most
> > >> > heaviest tasks.
> > >>
> > >> EVERY Fortune 500 company I have worked at keeps their most
> > >> important databases on AS/400's and Unix machines.
> > >
> > > which demonstrates exactly what we've been saying all along. You are
> full of
> > > it! And, besides, so what if 1 or 2 F500 companies keep "most" of their
> > > "important" databases on AS/400s and Unix machines according to
> ex-employee
> > > kookis. All the rest run on less expensive, easier to maintain/operate
> and
> > > more productive Windows/Intel boxes.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > And everyone is supposed to believe you why, exactly?
> >
> > You have shown yourself over and over to be a lying, self-important moron.
>
> oh give me a break - this is from the gay poster child of self-mutilation?
Leave Bill Gates and Steve Bawwwwlmer out of this.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 10:04:09 -0400
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > Chad Myers wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If Microsoft has such a good platform, then why are the
> servers
> > > > > > > > that come under the heaviest usage Unix machines?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How come no Lose2000 machines?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now that's a compelling argument! Also completely false.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Many corporations use WinNT and now Win2000 for their largest,
> most
> > > > > > > heaviest tasks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > EVERY Fortune 500 company I have worked at keeps their most
> > > > > > important databases on AS/400's and Unix machines.
> > > > >
> > > > > which demonstrates exactly what we've been saying all along. You are
> > > full of
> > > > > it! And, besides, so what if 1 or 2 F500 companies keep "most" of
> their
> > > > > "important" databases on AS/400s and Unix machines according to
> > > ex-employee
> > > > > kookis. All the rest run on less expensive, easier to
> maintain/operate
> > > and
> > > > > more productive Windows/Intel boxes.
> > > >
> > > > Refresh my memory....
> > > >
> > > > Exactly how is re-installing the operating system, re-installing all
> of
> > > > the applications, and then having to tweak all of the settings through
> > > > a gui every couple of months "easier to maintain and operate"
> > > >
> > > > In EXCEEDINGLY RARE the event of catastrophic failure on a Unix
> machine,
> > > > all you have to do is
> > > >
> > > > a) reload the absolute minimal base operating system (30 min max.)
> > > > b) recover from last night's backup tapes.
> > > >
> > > > ta-daaaaaaaaaaaaah, perfect restoration.
> > > >
> > > > Unix engineer goes back to desk, relaxes, posts to Usenet,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Meanwhile, drestin adress will be working overtime on his LoseNT box,
> > > > long into the night...going home when he has achieved the mere goal
> > > > of "getting it running"...and then will resume working on this ONE
> > > > BOX for the next two day.
> > >
> > > No - you miss the scenario completely. When the rare even of a Wintel
> box
> >
> > rare = 15 times/year.
>
> plucking bullshit outta thin air again? Who knows where this number comes
> from - who cares - it's full of crap. I don't even reboot 15 times a year on
> purpose let alone 'crash' - hahahahaah - sounds like your unix failure rate
> is creeping into your rants again...
Translation: Delphi hired a new guy, so Drestin is no longer the
absolute
lowest Windows-rebooter on the totem pole.
Go change the toner cartride in that printer, and fetch me a can
of Coke on the way back, dork.
>
> >
> > > failure occurs, my clients simply... continue onwards as if nothing
> happened
> >
> > .............Because....nobody uses that NT shit anyways.....
>
> hahahahaahhaahhahahahahahahhahahhahaha oh god you slay me... guess I better
> lay off some sales people and techs cause we must be only dreaming of all
> the W2K jobs were doing.
M$ is reporting... that sales are rather......UNDERWHELMING.
That doesn't sound liek "lots of installs" to me?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 10:05:51 -0400
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Stuart Fox wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Refresh my memory....
> > > >
> > > > Exactly how is re-installing the operating system, re-installing all
> of
> > > > the applications, and then having to tweak all of the settings through
> > > > a gui every couple of months "easier to maintain and operate"
> > >
> > > Is that what you have to do when you run NT? I certainly don't.
> > > >
> > > > In EXCEEDINGLY RARE the event of catastrophic failure on a Unix
> machine,
> > > > all you have to do is
> > > >
> > > > a) reload the absolute minimal base operating system (30 min max.)
> > > > b) recover from last night's backup tapes.
> > >
> > > As with NT.
> >
> > Have fun with that registry crap
> >
>
> no, YOU have fun with it - *I* never worry about it. Ever. at all. period.
>
Of course not. Only a fucking fool would trust a "atomic database" that
is saved as a threaded file on top of a non-atomic filesystem.
> hahahaah - kookus, everyone in here except your gay lover abracadabra have
> put you in your place and pointed out your lies and fud and trolling but you
> continue to try... you really crack us up...
The only crack around here is in that envelope in your pocket.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 10:08:12 -0400
Mike Byrns wrote:
>
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:39879d71$0$33843$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > You dare to claim "unix boxes are essential to running microsoft.com?"
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes. And based on the existance of Unix boxes at microsoft.com,
> > > Microsoft believes this, too.
> >
> > Prove it or continue to be considered the poorest liar on usenet
>
> Let me take this opportunity to greet you, Mr. Black. If you've read my
> posts I think you know that I am a Windows advocate. I hope that you take
> this the way that I intended it as USENET can mask the intentions of the
> most well mannered poster but I fail to see what you hope to gain for we
> Windows advocates by posting things like this? If you have a personal beef
> with these folks, and I think that you do if Mr. Kulkis is to be believed,
> then I suggest that you counter him in a more appropriate forum. Like the
> parking lot. nix folks are, in my experience, less concerned with physical
> fitness than Windows folks are with the former preferring donuts to barbells
> :-)
1. I'm a combat veteran.
2. I'm still a soldier to this day
3. I'm in the infantry
4. Fuck with me and I will kill you.
5. That's a promise.
>
> > > You're the one that argues that Microsoft doesn't need Unix to run
> > > their websight, when each machine costs them a good $100,000 more
> > > than if they were using their home grown LoseNT and Lose2000 shitholes.
> >
> > That is correct. MS does not need now nor has EVER at any time whatsoever
> > used Unix to run www.microsoft.com. I challenge you to disprove that
> > statement. Go ahead, or are you just a big bag of bullshit? are you a huge
> > liar? full of unix dreams and wishes never fulfilled. There are some unix
> > boxes at CD production plants that produce MS CDs, sure, but a unix box
> > producing www.microsoft.com output? hahahahahahha keep dreaming liar.
>
> The only part of this that I agree with is the request for proof of
> assertation. Please play nice Mr. Black. This is really only just a game.
> Our effect is negligable on the state of computing.
Mr. Drestin Crack, meet Mr. Crack Burns.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux for Desktop, a missing app...
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 09:05:28 -0500
Jarmo Ahonen wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We have been evaluating Linux and Windows 2000 as alternatives
> for the next desktop OS. We are going to upgrade from NT 4.0 in
> a year (next spring during the current timetable).
>
> It seems, surprisingly, that Linux would win if there were the required
> apps. Actually we lack only one application. All the desktop
> productivity stuff
> exists and is fairly usable.
>
> The lacking application is Lotus Notes R5 Client. No, the web-interface
> to Domino does not have the required functionality.
>
> We have been asking local Lotus and IBM people for Notes R5 Client
> for Linux but they say that there does is no market for such a client.
> I suppose that there are other organizations which would like to use
> Linux
> but require Lotus Notes R5 Client.
>
> I kindly ask others who use Lotus Domino R5 or Notes R5 Client
> to contact Lotus and IBM in order to tell them that there are real
> customers
> waiting for the Linux Client. We told them that we will put a standing
> order
> for quite a number of licenses it that will help. I kindly ask others to
> do the same.
> The only real reason for us to stay with the Windows -line is
> Notes R5 Client.
>
> Best regards
>
> Jarmo Ahonen
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree that we need to let IBM know about this. I have actually
already asked for the same (and gotten no response from the email I
sent).
However, I would like to point out that some people have been using the
Notes client under WINE (a Win32 library/emulation layer for Unix) and
been quite happy with the results.
We are evaluating the possibility of using this method within our
business as we grow. I believe that with the way IBM appears to be
pushing Linux on the server side it is just a matter of time before we
see the Lotus apps ported over. But they may be hedging their bets at
the moment due to some possibility of a premature MS backlash (before
IBM is ready to fully rid themselves of MS). Kind of ironic that IBM is
backing Linux to pay back MS for its shananigans, yet they are still
afraid in some areas of a MS backlash because of the current situation.
It's a fun situation to watch unfold though, as I think IBM may be one
of the few BIG BOYS selling x86 hardware that could give MS (as it
currently stands) a full run-for-the-money sort of fight. Kind of a
bar-room-brawl of the computer world unfolding before our eyes.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 10:10:51 -0400
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > You dare to claim "unix boxes are essential to running
> microsoft.com?"
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes. And based on the existance of Unix boxes at microsoft.com,
> > > > Microsoft believes this, too.
> > >
> > > Prove it or continue to be considered the poorest liar on usenet
> > >
> >
> > Look who's making accusations of spreading lies...
>
> Prove it or continue to be considered the poorest liar on usenet.
Aren't you the guy who claimed to be a good programmer, and then
posted an Endian-switch algorithm using string functions?
yeah, I thought so.
You wouldn't know the truth if you had the blueprints in your hands.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux as embedded OS
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 10:16:04 -0400
Tim Magnussen wrote:
>
> Hi there.
>
> I'm working for a company making analyzers for the medical industry.
> Currently we are using a mix of CE, 95 and vxWorks for the embedded
> devices. Some of us developers are attracted to the idea of using Linux
> instead though. We have been working on a project in our spare time to
> try this out and have come up with quite a good concept. So we were
> happy for a while ... until we read the GPL thoroughly. Since many parts
> of Linux is GPL and you in an embedded product can't claim that your
> proprietary code is independent of the rest, we would have to release
> the source the proprietary code. This would put us out of business and
> is of course out of the question.
> My question to you that is advocating for Linux' advantages:
>
> I hear of new concepts such as Mobile Linux / EmbedixLinux and other.
> But if one is to release the source of your proprietary code this makes
> Linux totally inappropriate for embedded use. What am I missing here?
>
> I must stress that I represent no authority to decide on the company's
> choice of OS for future analyzers. For those of us interested in this,
> information is very important in our advocating for Linux.
>
http://www.emjembedded.com/buildit/index.shtml
http://www.emjembedded.com/linux/index.html
> Kind Regards
> Tim Magnussen
> R&D Engineeer
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux as embedded OS
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 09:14:23 -0500
Tim Magnussen wrote:
>
> Hi there.
>
> I'm working for a company making analyzers for the medical industry.
> Currently we are using a mix of CE, 95 and vxWorks for the embedded
> devices. Some of us developers are attracted to the idea of using Linux
> instead though. We have been working on a project in our spare time to
> try this out and have come up with quite a good concept. So we were
> happy for a while ... until we read the GPL thoroughly. Since many parts
> of Linux is GPL and you in an embedded product can't claim that your
> proprietary code is independent of the rest, we would have to release
> the source the proprietary code. This would put us out of business and
> is of course out of the question.
> My question to you that is advocating for Linux' advantages:
>
> I hear of new concepts such as Mobile Linux / EmbedixLinux and other.
> But if one is to release the source of your proprietary code this makes
> Linux totally inappropriate for embedded use. What am I missing here?
>
> I must stress that I represent no authority to decide on the company's
> choice of OS for future analyzers. For those of us interested in this,
> information is very important in our advocating for Linux.
>
> Kind Regards
> Tim Magnussen
> R&D Engineeer
As long as you do not alter existing code you have no reason whatsoever
to have to release your proprietary code. This is a common
mis-conception: that any code on Linux must be released as source. It
just isn't so.
There are many 'commercial' and 'proprietary' apps available for Linux
that do not release the source code. Now, if you actually alter the
source for the Linux kernel itself, you must release that part of your
code, but an application running on Linux does not need to be released
as source. Only changes made to what already exists must be released as
source.
Examples of commercial apps without source released:
Word Perfect Office
(Until Recently) Star Office
Many games: Quake, Railroad Tycoon, Civilization: CTP, etc.
some drivers (as they do not modify existing code, but install a
module): Lucent WinMODEM drivers, Graphics card drivers (For XFree86),
some sound card drivers, etc., etc.
Commercial databases: Sybase is one
And may others.
The requirement is simply, if you change existing code you must release
those changes back to the community, but if you create your own code
from scratch (whether a device driver module, or an application) you do
not need to release that source. That's the qualifier.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbough,soc.singles
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 14:18:43 GMT
>>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
Aaron> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
>>
Aaron> Loren Petrich wrote:
>>
>> >> Stock is nothing more than Pokemon cards unless one is both able
>>
Aaron> Pokemon cards pay dividends????
>>
>> Owning dividend paying stocks is dumb.
Aaron> Depends on the size of the divedend, and the nature of the business.
It is incredibly tax inefficient. I suppose if you truly
expect the growth to overcome the large tax disadvantage
it is OK.
But I would be very suspicious of any management team that
set itself up for double taxation, and traded my 20% cap
gains tax for my ~50% income tax rate. (Plus paid the corporate
rate on the same earnings!).
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in talk.politics.misc...)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Linux as embedded OS
Date: 3 Aug 2000 14:21:36 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 15:04:07 +0200,
Tim Magnussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi and thanks for your answer.
>
>> You are missing "LGPL" which is a looser version of GPL intended for
>> libraries.
>>
>> If your system is self contained, you can make propritary code. If you
>> have to modify existing GPL code, then you must make your changes
>> public, but you can keep everything else private.
>
>But how do one define a self contained system?
>Say we base our system on an x86 device using:
>*) Linux compiled for this specific hardware
Note the kernel itself is under a modified GPL. It allows appliction
code that runs making system calls to it to be proprietary. That's
pretty much any application code for Linux. It also allows you to
distribute binary device drivers in the form of kernel modules. So if
you have some custom drivers you can keep them proprietary.
>*) Xfree86 & GTK+ (which is GPL and not LGPL as I understand it?) - unmodified
GTK+ is LGPL. You can write any propietary application code using
Xfree86 & GTK+.
>*) Apache - unmodified
More free than GPL. No problems there.
>*) PostgreSQL (more free than GPL)
Again, More free than GPL. No problems here.
>*) Our own proprietary software
>The proprietary software that we write will link to these packages but will
>not require modifications hereof.
No problems unless you modify any of the packages above, which you say
you are not.
>What we would deliver then is a hardware device containing all these parts but
>none can be said to be self contained. For example without GTK we wouldn't be
>able to display the userinterface (and that _would_ cripple the product :-) ).
The licensing terms don't quite consider it self contained in that
respect. If you write an app using GTK+ you can make it
proprietary. Same with code that makes system calls to the kernel or
with binary modules.
>> Corel, WordPerfect, Applix, etc. are making closed source projects. The
>> Linux kernel even has provisions for closed source software. At the top
>
>But as they deliver a software package which I think it is a different matter.
Not at all. WordPerfect, Applix and propreitary X-servers have
commonly been packaged with Linux distributions. They still won't work
without the libraries they depend on. WordPerfect and Applix use
LGPL's libraries only. OTOH If I wrote an app that linked to a GPL lib, I
would have to GPL it, even if I distrubuted as a separate product.
>The following is an excerpt from the GNU site on "Why you shouldn't use the
>Library GPL for your next library" that I read quite unambiguously:
>``Proprietary software developers have the advantage of money; free software
>developers need to make advantages for each other. Using the ordinary GPL for
>a library gives free software developers an advantage over proprietary
>developers: a library that they can use, while proprietary developers cannot
>use it.´´
And it does not appear you are needing to use any GPL libs. GTK+ is
LGPL. The kernel is GPL but liberal about both apps running on top of
it and about device drivers.
>We do have the advantage of money and I'm sure that the amount we would save
>from not having to pay MS royalties would be a small fortune, but that really
>isn't the issue.
I think you can both save on MS royalties and make your products more reliable.
>We could contribute to Linux financially or with code, but parts of our code
>is absolutely vital to the organization and cannot be released. This leaves us
>stranded...
I think you are OK.
Perry
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
