Linux-Advocacy Digest #299, Volume #28 Tue, 8 Aug 00 05:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Paging BIG DON ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Learn Unix on which Unix Flavour ? (Brad Hayes)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Karel Jansens)
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,soc.culture.african.american,sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: Paging BIG DON
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 04:13:46 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> [divorce: women stabbing men in the back...]
> >> Evidence other than Mr. Kulkis's posture of victimhood: {}
> >I'm not divorced. I would never be so fooooolish as to marry
> >any woman born and raised in this nation.
>
> I feel sorry for Mr. Kulkis that he cannot expect to have a
> friendly relationship with any member of the opposite sex.
False premise.
I'm currently involved with a girl who speaks 10 languages...7 fluently.
>
> >> >How about living an entire life in rat-and-cockroach-infested
> >> >dwellings that can only be considered firetraps.
> >> >Their entire lives are nothing but misery.
> >> But how are they getting such big loads of money if that is the case?
> >In case you haven't noticed, it doesn't help them.
>
> For welfare recipients to be a big drain of tax money, they must
> have 10 times the average income. Sheesh.
You forget the "support" bureacracy...all of those useless
government workers to process the paperwork to write the checks,
tens of thousands of welfare offices scattered across the country,
and the rent to pay for all that, etc.
80% of money budgeted for welfare goes to administration and
other overhead.
>
> >> I sense a sort of vindictiveness about this, something that makes
> >> think that Mr. Kulkis is a big fan of Soviet gulags.
> >Wrong. There is a fundamental difference.
>
> >The gulags are for POLITICAL prisoners. My idea is for economic
> >deadbeats....who are freed upon paying their back taxes...which
> >they will earn while under state custody.
>
> And how will these back taxes be assessed? Given Mr. Kulkis's
> vindictive mentality, they will probably be 10*normal, meaning that these
> people will never be able to pay off those taxes.
no politician wants to see himself voted out of office for setting
the bar too high...
>
> >> >That's because the Communists are engaged in a specific campaign
> >> >to NEUTER the United States through internal collapse. ...
> >> From a grove of birch trees it came...
> >And of course, the knee-jerk response whenever I hit upon
> >yet another uncomfortable truth.
>
> That remark is simply a way of indicating what idiocy such claims are.
Translation: Loren doesn't know how to answer, so he attempts to
dismiss through slander and innuendo.
Try again, LOSER.
> --
> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
> My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
--
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: Brad Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,alt.solaris.x86,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Learn Unix on which Unix Flavour ?
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 08:26:37 GMT
Lew Pitcher wrote:
> Ed Reppert wrote:
> >
> > In article <8m36fh$dtt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alan Coopersmith
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Officially, any OS that gets certified as meeting the standards set
> > > forth by the Open Group can be called "UNIX(TM)" - currently that list
> > > includes Solaris, AIX, Tru64 (aka Digital UNIX), IRIX, UnixWare, HP-UX,
> > > and even IBM OS/390.
Is this to say that DYNIX/ptx (brand name of Sequent Computer Systems,
which was acquired by IBM last September is not a member of this group ? I
would find it hard to believe that it is not as real of a UNIX as any other!
(But maybe not as widely known to the general public...)
>
> >
> > OS/390 is Unix?! When did that happen?
>
> IIRC, 1998 or so. It happened when the MVS Unix System Services (USS)
> subsystem passed the X/Open conformancy tests. IBM made a big thing of
> it at the time; it officially permitted US Govt. purchasers to
> purchase MVS under the Posix-compliancy rules.
>
> Anyway, IBM markets Apache for OS/390, with (IIRC) enhancements
> rebranded as "WebSphere". Talk about scalability ;-)
>
> > > For full details see http://www.unix-systems.org/
> >
> > I'll go check it out.
>
> --
> Lew Pitcher
>
> Master Codewright and JOAT-in-training
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 11:49:58 +0200
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Shocktrooper wrote:
>
> "Karel Jansens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Bob Hauck wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 18:25:41 GMT, Daniel Johnson
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9309/9309d/9309d.htm#0272_000e
> > > >
> > > >This article describes the bug in a beta of Windows 3.1 which
> > > >caused a spurious and unintelligible (but harmless) error message
> > > >when you installed on DR-DOS. It was fixed prior to release.
> > >
> > > Maybe you can explain to us why this mere "bug" was encrypted and why
> > > it attempted to disable debuggers then? This looks pretty deliberate
> > > for a "bug", particularly since other code around the block in question
> > > is not so protected.
> > >
> > > And if DR-DOS really was incompatible, why did they disable (but not
> > > remove) this code in the retail version?
> > >
> >
> > I hate to repeat myself, but since people still come up with this
> > canard, I reckon I'm entitled to respond.
> > The so-called "DR-DOS bug" _did_ make it into at least one GA copy of
> > Windows 3.1: mine. I still have both the Win 3.1 and my DR-DOS 6 disks
> > and a couple of months ago I installed them on an obsolete 486SX, just
> > to make sure I wasn't remembering wrong.
> >
> > Windows 3.1 refuses to start on a computer with DR-DOS 6 on it (it would
> > load happily on MS DOS 5). I also managed to find the patch-disk a
> > friend of mine downloaded from a BBS at the time to make Win 3.1 think
> > it had a "regular" DOS to bootstrap on.
>
> I suggest you contact the DOJ, as they were all but incapable of finding such a
>thing.
>
> >
> > Now, before someone starts nit-picking: my Windows 3.1 was not an OEM
> > version, it was bought shrink-wrapped in a shop (the invoice should be
> > buried somewhere), as was my DR-DOS 6. MS DOS 5 OTOH came with some or
> > other computer (and was never actually used).
> >
> > I would also find it hard to believe mine was the only non-compliant
> > Windows 3.1, so anything mentioned about "bugs" and "harmless" or "in
> > the beta only" is pure and utter FUD.
>
> No, but it's not hard to believe that you are lying.
>
> I'ld point out that the issue that DOJ was looking into was not even a refusal to
>load. It was a misleading error prompt.. but it
> still loaded and ran fine.
>
> So, if they got upset over that.. if they get a hold of your copy.. they'll REALLY
>go ballistic!!!
Tell them to contact me; I have everything, the Win 3.1 box, my DR-DOS 6
box and the fix-disk, wrapped up, ready to ship.
And BTW, Windows 3.1 over DR-DOS 6 did _not_ load (I won comment on the
"running fine" bit, for some people Windows 3.1 not running was the
equivalent of running fine): it consistently dumped me back to the
prompt (just about the only time Windows 3.1 ever managed to do
something consistently).
--
Karel Jansens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
========================================================
"I laugh in the face of danger.
I drop icecubes down the vest of fear."
(Edmund Blackadder III)
========================================================
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 04:40:57 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Yep...Linux is a dismal failure as far as the average desktop, non
> nerd person is concerned.
>
> If Gates were giving away Windows at the local computer shop or on the
> net you wouldn't even be able to get near the place.
>
It's only due to name recognition. nothing more.
> Claire
>
> On Mon, 7 Aug 2000 11:41:26 -0400, "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >No one WANTS an alternative to Windows therefore there is no market for one.
> >There are plenty of alternatives and has been for QUITE a while. As is
> >proven by the fact that Linux can't even be GIVEN away.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 04:44:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Sun, 6 Aug 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>> On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 19:00:02 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> All that's needed to conclude that Netscape is derivative of a given
>>> plug-in is to accept the premise that plug-ins are (or at least can
>>> be) libraries.
>> And this is the premise I don't buy. It seems that in the matter of PC
>> software, at least, a plug in is to an application as a program is to a
>> library.
>
>You have this precisely backwards. It's plugin:application and
>library:program, NOT plugin:application and program:library.
And what immutable law of physics do you think it is which
differentiates one set of software code from another? In other words
"says who?" The plug in is the active shell which relies on the
applications existence to function. The program is the active shell
which relies on the library's existence to function. It still doesn't
matter at all when considering copyright law, but while I can understand
why many people's perceptions might be different than mine, I can't
understand any dogmatic insistence by caveat that this should not be
considered, if not recognized.
>Your 'not
>buying' the premise is also irrelevant; Isaac merely stated a fact: a
>plug-in can be and often is written as a shared library. It is possible
>for a plug-in to be accessed from outside of the context of Netscape,
>so long as one calls it in the proper manner.
So? It is possible for any software to be accessed in any way that the
software is programmed to be accessed in, i'nit?
[...]
>> Nevertheless, I would insist that knowledge of technical details is,
>> must be, considered irrelevant; source code is protected as a
>> literary work of authorship, not a work of engineering design.
>
>Correct. And this is *precisely* why each program and library is a
>protected work on its own, without necessarily having derivation from
>the other. If the linking is done only in memory on the consumer
>machine, then this is a private copy that is already permissible under
>copyright law.
I'm afraid not. The library, privately owned or not, is intellectual
property of the author; if the library author did not give permission to
prepare derivative works based on their software, then any linking,
regardless of the mechanism, is not allowed. Since GPL provides that
permission only with the provision that the derivative work (program, or
program + library, regardless of how you want to perceive it) have no
additional licensing restrictions, the linking constitutes infringement.
>>> The conclusion is of course absurd, but that is of course the entire
>>> point. Your premise is the problem, but because you are ignorant of
>>> the technical details of the other premise you don't have to accept
>>> that.
>> My premise is that there is no real distinction vis-a-vis copyright law
>> between library and program. As Lee is fond of pointing out, "copyright
>> law does not protect functionality".
>
>Your conclusion from that premise, however, is faulty.
How so? If the value and meaning of one literal work requires and is
based on another literal work, then it is derivative. I cannot seen any
fault in the logic or conclusion. I can certainly see why it seems
counter-intuitive and contrary to established (but misguided) concepts
of software and software products. But it is accurate in its definition
of derivative works (a work "based on" another work), consistent with
all cogent legal decisions, and practical in identifying why software is
problematic when covered by copyright to begin with.
I never said it made sense. I just suggested that it is correct. And
it does, in fact, make sense to me. Your more conventional
representation makes sense to me as well, in a different way (I
understand, but do not agree, with it). Sorry if that sounds like an
insult, but it is really just meant as an observation that you seem to
be leaving most of your argument unstated, presenting little more than
bald contradictions without explanation and relying on the facts and
misconceptions previously presented (and addressed, if not refuted, by
yours truly) to support your position.
I'm not buying it. If you don't want to sell it, that's fine; feel free
to ignore me, if you can. I won't say my position has remained entirely
unassailable or static, nor that I've fully explored all possible
ramifications and considerations of my thinking. But I'd appreciate
more help, and less defensive insistence and ridiculous posturing (as
well as the freedom to cease in that regard myself) seeking to distract
and inhibit, in that endeavor.
I'm more than willing to accept instruction and aid in identifying how
my thinking may be *flawed*. But a rudimentary posture that it is
*faulty* is an empty promise, to be perfectly honest.
If software cannot be derivative of other software which did not exist
in its current fixed form at the time of authorship, it stands to reason
there would be little difficulty in overcoming a burden of proof that it
is not derivative. (Intellectual property law does indeed place such a
burden of proof on those accused of infringement.) But absent of such
context, there is no reason to believe that a program is not derivative
of a library, nor a plug-in derivative of an application, nor vice
versa, simply because the current implementation of a source code file
has a later creation date than the potentially derivative work.
I think implementing such rules steadfastly is as impractical as banning
the use of shared libraries because it makes software unworkable as
copyright protected material. But I never insisted that applying
copyright to software is necessarily feasible to begin with.
--
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: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 04:44:36 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Sun, 6 Aug 2000 10:52:39 -0400, Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>< I said>
>>>> You don't accept the final premise, but I don't see any need to push
>>>> you over the last hurdle. It wouldn't be necessary for someone with
>>>> who is familiar with the technical details of plug-ins and libraries
>>>> to accept that there problem with the argument lies elsewhere.
>< Max noted >
>>> I'm not sure at all what you meant to say, perhaps merely because of a
>>> couple small grammatically errors.
>>
>>Isaac didn't make any errors here.
>>
>
>Sure I did! I used "there" instead of "the" and I stuck an extra
>"with" in the sentence. Also my sentences are generally way to
>very readily digested. While I think my meaning was obvious, I did
>screw up, so I won't blame Max for my errors.
Meanwhile, I'm staring at the phrase "small grammatically errors." ;-(
[...]
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
