Linux-Advocacy Digest #265, Volume #28 Sun, 6 Aug 00 15:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive! (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Sort of a comparison, I think. (mlw)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh ("neuralnoise")
Re: Sort of a comparison, I think. ("Raul Iglesias")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: ATTN: REX BALLARD: Microsoft's contracts not volountary ("Raul Iglesias")
Re: ATTN: REX BALLARD: Microsoft's contracts not volountary ("Raul Iglesias")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
can Linux use be so low? I do not believe it. web traffic. (sid@net)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: can Linux use be so low? I do not believe it. web traffic. ("Raul Iglesias")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Subject: Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive!
Date: 06 Aug 2000 17:14:00 GMT
>Andre posted a thing he called disk-destroyer.c (see below) which
>will use an IDE command to trash the partition table on a disk
This is not an O/S dependent problem. Any O/S that allows direct disc access
allows the command "find sector 0 (or wherever the partition table is) and
write a copy of The Cathedral and The Bazaar over it".
>Apparently, however, there are other
>variants possible which will cause the drive to wipe out its firmware, thus
>turning it into a true brick
Again not a Linux issue. I have updated drive firmware through DOS-- had I
been given the wrong flash file, I would have had a brick, not a drive that
actually implemented DMA/33 properly.
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
Colony name not needed in address.
DC2.Dw Gm L280c W+ T90k Sks,wl Cma-,wbk Bsu#/fl A+++ Fr++ Nu M/ O H++ $+ Fo++
R++ Ac+ J-- S-- U? I++ V+ Q++[thoughtspeech] Tc++
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Sort of a comparison, I think.
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 13:34:16 -0400
I just got another machine. I am working on a project that took hours to
do on a PII 450, 128 Meg ram. So, I got a dual PIII 700, 256M ram. It is
much better now.
So, left over is a pretty decent machine on which to run things.
I setup Windows on it. It took 3 1/2 hours. This was installing
software, finding drivers, downloading drivers, installing drivers,
rebooting, etc.
The machine has TV card, sound card, Adaptec SCSI, IDE CD, IDE disk in a
removable tray. I had a parallel port scanner which I had to boot into
Windows to operate, so I moved that back to the old machine. All in all,
it is a pretty fun machine.
Now, just having Windows on it seemed like a waste. So, I put a "removed
due to upgrade" hard disk in the tray, and installed RedHat Linux. This
only took about 1/2 hour for standard "kde" workstation.
Once booted, the only thing that did not run was the TV card and the
scanner. I knew the UMAX scanner would probably never run on Linux (OEM
stupidity), that left the Hauppauge TV card. I went to www.linuxhw.com,
click on links, and found video for Linux. Found xawtv. Downloaded it,
configure, make, install, up and running. That took about 1/2 hour.
So, about 3 1/2 hours for Windows 98SE, and about 1 hour for Linux.
All in all, the Linux install was faster and easier.
Perhaps this is a rare occurrence, but then again maybe not.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
I'm glad we disagree, it gives us a fantastic opportunity to be totally
honest.
------------------------------
From: "neuralnoise" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 17:46:02 GMT
"Loren Petrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8mj69s$hv5
> No, I support what I consider the lesser of two evils
So you support evil? Why? Are you evil?
------------------------------
From: "Raul Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sort of a comparison, I think.
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 18:25:58 GMT
A single case does not mean anything, anyway I admit that GNU/Linux if
you know how to do it, installs by far quicker than any Windows (except
Windows 3.1 and perhaps 95), at least in my case it has always been so.
But let's be honest, measuring downloading time of drivers and the so is
not too clean from my point of view. If your GNU/Linux distribution would
not have installed, I assure to you that browsing the net, reading howtos
and
documentation and making it work would not be honest to include within
the distro installation.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 6 Aug 2000 13:27:22 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Yes, I agree with both of you. The question is, why am I confusing the
>sticky bit with the "set uid" bit? I'm willing to start from scratch on
>this if we need to, but in all honesty I'm quite sure that you two would
>have an easier time identifying how they are related as well as how they
>are distinct more than I would.
Didn't this post make it to you:
http://x66.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=651273735&CONTEXT=965583970.1682178073&hitnum=0
Basically the sticky bit was added back in the days when executables
were copied into swap before starting. The sticky bit was a hint
to the OS that this program should 'stick' in memory and swap
even when all executing instances have exited so the next run
would have a quicker startup. Then later it was overloaded for
directories to mean that only someone with write permission on
a file can delete it in that directory, even if they do have
write permission on the directory.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Raul Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,soc.singles,alt.society.anarchy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: ATTN: REX BALLARD: Microsoft's contracts not volountary
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 18:30:38 GMT
> 2. So? Why should you have an income if you're not working?
Well up to certain limit it is the final humanity goal I think ... unless
big and strong companies make 90% persons work a lot to be able
them to live very well.
> 3. What prevents you from looking for a job BEFORE leaving your
> current employer?
Time ? It depends on which land you live the easyness of finding a
new job and if it is difficult it will demand time.
> Capitalism is economic freedom...FOR EVERYBODY.
Are you joking ?
------------------------------
From: "Raul Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,soc.singles,alt.society.anarchy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: ATTN: REX BALLARD: Microsoft's contracts not volountary
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 18:30:38 GMT
> 2. So? Why should you have an income if you're not working?
Well up to certain limit it is the final humanity goal I think ... unless
big and strong companies make 90% persons work a lot to be able
them to live very well.
> 3. What prevents you from looking for a job BEFORE leaving your
> current employer?
Time ? It depends on which land you live the easyness of finding a
new job and if it is difficult it will demand time.
> Capitalism is economic freedom...FOR EVERYBODY.
Are you joking ?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 6 Aug 2000 13:35:30 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Graham Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In gnu.misc.discuss, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Personally, I would, for reasons you are trying to indicate, accept a
>> supposition that all Netscape plug-ins are derivative of Netscape. Why
>> you would think this makes Netscape derivative of plug-ins is not really
>> important; it may well be the case if the browser "derives" a great deal
>> of its value from the plug-ins. I am simply not willing to assume that
>> this is the case, and don't see why it is an issue.
>
>IMHO the situation can be even more complicated. Take RealPlayer,
>Netscape and Internet Explorer. Realplayer is a standalone application
>and can run happily as such, but it is also a plugin for Netscape and
>IE. So, are Netscape and IE derivatives of Realplayer? Or is
>Realplayer a derivative of both Netscape and IE? Or, do you treat the
>plugin as a separate product and say that it is a derivative of both
>Realplayer and Netscape or IE (as appropriate)?
Even more complicated than that: If you accept the oddball concept
that all programs loaded into the same address space become
derivatives of each other, how do you deal with the case where
one program is capable of dynamically loading many separate
components under scripted control. Perl and apache do this
along with many others. Now, if someone distributes a perl
script that causes perl to load GPL'd readline along with
some commercial database library (for example), does this
create an illegal situation according to copyright law, and
if so, who is at fault? Or, in Apache/mod_perl, the
components are loaded as needed for each request but remain
in memory for the life of the httpd child. What if unrelated
web pages load different modules to create the same circumstance.
In this case there may be no actual dependency between the
two modules, yet they become loaded into the same memory
address space.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 14:44:54 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Leslie Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>[...]The
>>notes weren't the same; they weren't even just transposed. But the song
>>was 'identical', and anyone listening to it can tell.
>
>Translations and various transformations are covered and that does
>not change the issue from this being derived *and* copied from
>another original work. If he had just made a reference that
>said 'go get your own copy of this other work' instead of including
>a copy of what a jury determined to be a derivative work, he
>could not have infringed on a copyright. Code that references
>a user's existing library does not copy any part of it.
A cogent argument. But your use of the term 'code' as if that were
important is telling. It is not whether a *program* references an
existing code-base, but whether the *intellectual work* references the
code base, which is determinant. The obviously impossible suggestion
that George Harrison could have "dynamically linked" to somebody else's
musical composition illustrates how easily the concept of function
enters into the supposedly functionless nature of copyright protection.
A "work" is functional (it must provide some value, if only 'crude
originality', to warrant protection and provide an opportunity for
commercial profit), but arbitrarily so. If I had to have some other
author's book in order to make any sense of a certain novel, then the
novel is derivative. Given the clean and discrete history of authorship
available to literature and unfortunately absent from the
engineering-based software work, it is obvious and even correct to
consider the sequence of original creation in defining one as original
and the other as derivative. But in software terms, a much more dynamic
environment exists, and acceptability to the consumer is both arbitrary
and telling in terms of what provides value and what is mere "copying".
>>In the case of using a library already on the user's machine, the
>>binary/source code/program is implemented *together* with the
>>library/binary/source.
>
>Yes, when and if the user chooses to use his existing library
>in that manner. Note that such use could potentially be
>a license infringement, since licenses, unlike copyright
>can have any terms both parties agree to that are not illegal.
>However, in the case of the GPL, there are no usage restrictions.
Note that you confuse right-to-copy copyright licenses with right-to-use
trade secret licenses. Anything, even calling your mother on weekends,
could potentially be "infringement" of such a license agreement. This
should not be confused with the actual legal term "infringement", which
only applies to copyright and patent, AFAIK.
>>It is one "work", and if it derives code from
>>the library, it is derivative of the library. The copying into RAM, I'm
>>told, whether literal or merely deterministic, is the purpose of an
>>explicit exception written into copyright statute. This would appear to
>>indicate that "there is no such copying" going on is debatable.
>
>Yes this copy is allowed as 'fair use' of your original copy
>so the only issue is whether you are allowed to have obtained
>your copy of the GPL'd library in the first place. Or whether
>you are allowed to have the copy of the non-GPL'd code that
>may at some time become linked to other libraries.
No, that copy is allowed by an explicit exclusion within copyright law,
written specifically for software. In point of fact, it was obviously
thought that the copy to RAM was *not* considered fair use, or there
would have been no need for this exclusion allowing copies made during
the "essential steps" of 'use'.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html
[...]
>I cannot fathom how a law dealing with explicitly copying material
>(even allowing for the translation/transformation concept) can
>have anything to do with different original material that is
>not such a copy in any of the possible interpretations. There
>is no copying involved here, only references to a user's existing
>copy which he has been given the right to use any way he
>chooses.
It is primarily, I believe, due to this part of section 106, enumerating
what exclusive rights a copyright holder enjoys:
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted
work;
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html
It is for precedent, not statute, to define what 'based upon' means and
the current debate is testament to the fact that this is definitely an
open-ended discussion as concerns GPL and libraries.
--
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:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 14:44:57 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> wrote:
>> [...quoting from the Finding of Fact...]
>
>These are hearsay claims which won't stand up to appeal. But since we're
>pasting documents to Usenet here's my contribution, it's showing Microsoft's
>court position and indicates the many reasons the whole case will be thrown
>out.
You don't seem to understand. These aren't "hearsay claims". They are
the _findings_ of _fact_ in the case. I've heard (though I wish I had
more details, honestly) that the appellate court would have to find that
"any reasonable person would have found differently". As to whether or
not these facts constitute criminal activity, that is in the judge's
Conclusions of Law. That document is appropriately referred to as the
judge's *opinion*, and can be countermanded most easily in comparison to
the document cited.
[...MS "press release legal brief" snipped...]
--
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: sid@net
Subject: can Linux use be so low? I do not believe it. web traffic.
Date: 6 Aug 2000 10:55:36 -0700
I was shocked to see this web page, it does web traffic analysis,
and it claims Linux use is about 0% of total.
check it out, please tell me this can't be true
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2000/August/os.html
win98 61,980,402 65%
win95 16,710,282 17%
winNT 7,088,434 7%
win2K 2,569,636 2%
-
mac 1,848,624 1%
webTV 749,229 0%
Linux 276,626 0%
-
-
-
amiga 5,863 0%
so, if we add all window machines, we get
windows 85%
Linux 0%
Which is not good. Linux is behind WebTV???
well, at least we are ahead of amiga. I realy think this is
all bougus, but if is true, then we need to do better.
sid
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 6 Aug 2000 18:52:17 GMT
In article <8mkb5i$2fja$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
discusses how many angels can dance on the head of a pin:
>Even more complicated than that: If you accept the oddball concept
>that all programs loaded into the same address space become
>derivatives of each other, how do you deal with the case where
Assuming you are talking about "derivative works" as part of copyright
law, then nobody with any understanding of the law accepts that concept.
Some people seem to think that a program that is written to take advantage
of the interface to another program is a derivative work of that program.
That does not seem to match the definition of "derivative work" in the
copyright statute, nor has any court case interpreted the statute that
way.
If you are talking about a "derivative" as something different from a
"derivative work" in the copyright sense, then it would all depend on
how you define "derivative". But then, who really cares?
>one program is capable of dynamically loading many separate
>components under scripted control. Perl and apache do this
>along with many others. Now, if someone distributes a perl
>script that causes perl to load GPL'd readline along with
>some commercial database library (for example), does this
>create an illegal situation according to copyright law, and
>if so, who is at fault? Or, in Apache/mod_perl, the
What "illegal situation according to copyright law"? And remember, if
you are the owner of a copy of a computer program, you get to copy it and
modify it as necessary to use it. 17 USC 117.
>components are loaded as needed for each request but remain
>in memory for the life of the httpd child. What if unrelated
>web pages load different modules to create the same circumstance.
>In this case there may be no actual dependency between the
>two modules, yet they become loaded into the same memory
>address space.
So what? Please state how you feel copyright law applies to these
situations, indicating the sections of the Copyright Act of 1978,
as amended, that you feel apply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 6 Aug 2000 13:56:02 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Leslie Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
>>No, it is copying that is covered by copyright law. If another
>>author had not seen any previous Star War material and made
>>a similar character or plot it could not be an infringement
>>(although unless it pre-dated the famous version it would
>>be hard to prove that the author had not seen any of it).
>>If anything is copied from the original even in a translated
>>or transformed way, it would be an infringement.
>
>Your assumption that an onerous of proof would be on the author to
>evidence that he *hadn't* seen any 'prior work' indicates the confusion
>on this issue, I think. What, precisely, are you "copying in a
>transformed way" if you are not copying the original author's text?
Actually for a conviction, the prosecution should have to show that
the author did see the prior work as a part of establishing that
copying was involved, but in the case of something famous that
would almost be an assumption. But, if the author can prove he
was not aware of the original that would eliminate any question.
If you haven't seen the original, how could you copy it?
>
>>>In truth, there are at least four different publishers producing written
>>>Star Wars materials. It isn't this bogus 'copying' issue which confuses
>>>you so much which allows this; it is the fact that all have the
>>>permission (license) of the owner of the intellectual property embodied
>>>by the literal aspects of Star Wars.
>>
>>Yes, the rights can be bought, sold, or given away.
>
>How off-target and contentious. What's your point?
Huh? You were the one who brought up transferring rights - I
was just agreeing.
>>>What are your thoughts on "plagiarism" versus "infringement" and the
>>>distinction or commonality between them?
>>
>>They are the same - actual copying of material must occur. None
>>of which has anything to do with original code that makes
>>function calls to another library that an end user already
>>has obtained legally.
>
>I'm afraid that the distinction between plagiarism and infringement has
>been discussed at least to some extent in court decisions concerning
>copyright; they are not the same thing.
A certain amount of copyrighted material can be copied under
the 'fair use' exception.
>It is "original code",
>"functional calls" and "obtained legally" which has nothing to do with
>the issue of derivative works.
Exactly - and that is all you have in the case of another work
distributed in source or linkable objects. The separately
obtained and copyrighted library does not become involved until
linked by the user, who has the right to do so.
>I still haven't heard anyone consider the concept of compilations of
>literary works versus PC software.
This usually isn't necessary. Programs contain at least some
original material in addition to the libraries from various
sources. The copyright on that part is enough to control
distribution. Also, this would only come into play where
the work was distributed with static linked libraries included
with copies of the needed dynamic libs (which, of course would
require appropriate permissions).
>Particularly considering that the
>user has generally agreed to licensing terms (which an end user need not
>do to comply with copyright law), I would think the concept that a
>personal computer's software is always an "original work" of the
>administrator/operator, to some extent, would be more prevalent.
Since you don't often distribute copies of your entire machine, I
don't see where this concept would come up, and regardless it would
not do away with the need to meet all of the requirements of the
individual components. The GPL would seem to be opposed to this
idea anyway, since it can only be included with other things as
a 'mere aggregation', at least if you intended to impose any
additional distribution restrictions on the whole.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Raul Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: can Linux use be so low? I do not believe it. web traffic.
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 19:00:22 GMT
> I was shocked to see this web page, it does web traffic analysis,
> and it claims Linux use is about 0% of total.
Clients ? Well, GNU/Linux is mostly used as server side even when
it is an stupendous desktop workstation for most purposes.
> Linux 276,626 0%
0% does not mean 0
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 6 Aug 2000 19:08:41 GMT
In article <8mkcc2$2ko9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>Actually for a conviction, the prosecution should have to show that
>the author did see the prior work as a part of establishing that
>copying was involved, but in the case of something famous that
>would almost be an assumption. But, if the author can prove he
>was not aware of the original that would eliminate any question.
>If you haven't seen the original, how could you copy it?
And, not surprisingly, that's just how it works. Except that "conviction"
and "prosecution" are terms generally used in criminal law. Although
copyright infringement can, in some circumstances, be criminal, in most
cases it is a civil matter. So, instead of "prosecution", substitute
"plaintiff" or "copyright owner" or something like that.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
