Linux-Advocacy Digest #325, Volume #28 Wed, 9 Aug 00 10:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: C# is a copy of java (Geoff Lane)
Re: Paging BIG DON (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: - Windows has made me stupid !!! Thanks, Bill. (Windows is worst than
Crack-Cocaine) - (I got to say it again!!!) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
It's official, NT beats Linux (?) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Does Linux have core design flaws? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: - Windows has made me stupid !!! Thanks, Bill. (Windows is worst than
Crack-Cocaine) - (I got to say it again!!!) (Randy Howard)
Re: It's official, NT beats Linux (?) (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Does Linux have core design flaws? (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 13:04:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8mmj5u$4ct$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> > How wonderfully informative of you to say so. Has anybody else
ever
> >> > noticed a certain reticence in Unix people to be a little
cheerfully
> >> > courteous in providing conversational understanding?
> >>
> >> Have you noticed that every time someone says you are wrong you
resort
> >> to invective against this mythical "unix people"?
> >
> >Hey, don't go stealing all the thunder :P. When *anyone* tells Max
he's
> >wrong, he eventually resorts to invective against whoever they are,
no
> >matter how much patience they might show.
>
> That is patently, even ludicrously, untrue. As is the illusion that
> Roberto presented. I am gracious and courteous in response to people
> who are gracious and courteous in response. Those that provide
> information, like Roberto, might get insulted should they not be
> gracious and courteous as well as informative. Those that don't, like
> Christopher Smith, are gratuitously ridiculed as trolls.
Which leaves open the question: what is the appropiate way to react
to someone who is not curteous (since curteous people doesn't insult
or gratuitously ridicule) is not gracious, and is not informative, like
you?
My personal bet is contempt, but I'll hold it for a moment.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 9 Aug 2000 13:29:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: A developer who wanted to hedge his bets, cash in on a fast-growing
: new market, and still have easy access to the existing Windows markets
: would be very wise to consider using a portable language such as C,
: PERL, TCL, or Java. Is there a Python for Windows?
Oh, but of course there is!
http://www.python.org/download/
Python and Perl look to have been ported to a similar (huge) number of
platforms. There's also a mod_python to make CGI handling more
efficient, available at (big surprise):
http://www.modpython.org/
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 13:16:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >Read the thread. The suid bit is what people say when they write
> >"the suid bit is...". The sticky bit is the one described as
> >"the sticky bit, instead...". Particular instances of the
descriptions
> >will vary slightly. There are at least 5 of each.
> >
> >> I'd appreciate any help I can get clearing up my confusion.
> >
> >I'm not betting on that, myself.
>
> A good bet. Apparently, my unstated suspicion is true; experts
> generally find it impossible to describe what they already know in a
> manner which is very useful to anyone who doesn't already know it.
Well, you are no short of communication problems, either.
Descriptions, explanations, and definitions have been given.
If you don't understand them, say so. Saying that they have not been
given because you don't understand them is stupid. If you are not stupid
you must stop acting as if you were.
> Your
> statement, for instance, is generally about as useless as any response
> to a question I've ever seen. But I do actually suspect that you were
> doing it intentionally.
All my statements are intentional.
> In case anyone decides I'm gratuitously insulting "experts" or "Unix
> guys" or "engineers", again, I must protest that this really is a fair
> and valid observation. Engineers make lousy teachers, and people who
> make good teachers are probably lousy engineers, by nature of the
> requirements. I point it out not to contribute to any prejudicial
> "us/them" false dichotomy to attack engineers and experts, but
actually
> and honestly to try to educate those who have expertise so that they
can
> more easily do what I'm sure they would like to do in many cases,
which
> is to share their knowledge and understanding with those who can
benefit
> from it.
You seem to be impenetrable for knowledge, in many cases.
> Step 1: Assume the questioner is neither stupid nor clueless, but is
> previously misinformed and mistaken.
You ARE clueless, in the canonical sense.
> Step 2: Try to ascertain or elicit what detail of misinformation most
> prevents the questioner from recognizing and correcting the mistake.
Your total ignorance of the whole background needed to comprehend
the matters you argue about? That can only be cured by constant
education, for a period of years.
> Step 3: Assume the questioner is honest, and when they don't
understand
> your initial explanation, consider that the explanation, while
correct,
> simply didn't make sense in the context which the (misinformed and
> mistaken) questioner understands.
That can be solved by you, going to school. We can't provide the
equivalent of a freshman course in computer science here.
> Step 4: Return to step 1, and try a *different* way of explaining the
> concept or issue. Reference to your earlier explanation is helpful,
but
> simple repetition is not.
Well, you, as a learner, should say "I don't understand". You instead
keep on asking for explanations. We, obviously, assume you refuse
to see the ones already given. Be humble and accept your ignorance.
[snip teaching theory] I have taken courses to become a teacher
(not too many, only the mandatory ones)
> The current example is that both setuid and
> sticky 'bits' are similarly, if distinctly, presented as
'permissions'.
So are read and write by group bits.
> Considering how easy it would be to miscommunicate the distinction
> between the sticky 'bit' and the world execute permissions 'bit' as
> represented in permissions, it isn't hard to describe how the sticky
bit
> and suid bit might be confabulated.
Both are cases of a dozen things, which are members of the generic
kind of object "permissions". Why are you confusing these two?
> If you can understand why what
> they're thinking makes sense to them, its a lot easier to help them
> figure out their mistake. A novel approach in comparison to briefly
> trying to hand-wave their confusion, ridiculing them, and calling them
> clueless, but a much more effective one, if you're willing to expend
> some effort to avoid confusion and distraction from more productive
> discussion.
You assume it's our duty to educate you. You are deeply wrong.
> Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
I wouldnt bet on that, either.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geoff Lane)
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 13:32:17 +0100
In article <8mdbg9$kig$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Imagine trying to implement something like C's qsort() in Pascal,
> where you can't have open-ended arrays, and you can't pass an array
> of unknown types of data.
Trivial with modern extended versions of pascal. Even 20 years ago there
were versions of pascal that didn't include the array size as part of the
type information - you don't get compile time errors but there's nothing to
stop runtime checks being made.
--
/\ Geoff. Lane. /\ Manchester Computing /\ Manchester /\ M13 9PL /\ England /\
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Paging BIG DON
Date: 9 Aug 2000 13:36:34 GMT
On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 08:35:19 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>... just noting that the book upholds the usual academic standards
In terms of the amount of material cited, yes.
>Right wing?
>
>Where in the book do M&H call for an economy with massive vertical
>integration of the industrial and financial structures like, say,
>Japan.
Come on. You don't think a book that says that the aristocrats and their
off spring are born to rule because they're more intelligent than everyone
else, and that minorities and the poor are too stupid to do better has
some implications ? Basically, it's a perfect excuse for the aristocracy
to keep the poor down because they're "too stupid" to do better anyway.
Don't try to pretend that the book is unbiased. I doubt that even
the authors would make such an absurd claim.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.windows2000,alt.linux,alt.windows98,alt.linux.os
Subject: Re: - Windows has made me stupid !!! Thanks, Bill. (Windows is worst than
Crack-Cocaine) - (I got to say it again!!!)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 13:39:57 GMT
On Wed, 9 Aug 2000 01:03:33 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>New_User <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I was doing so well with computers, I had a BBS going, I was
>> programming, etc...
>>
>> Then Windows came out and turned me into a point and click idiot.
>
>I sure hope you didn't try running you BBS on Windows. Lots of good BBS
>went down for the count when their BBS software was ported to Windows.
I used to run a BBS also, based on Mustang Software's Wildcat. I had
tried Major and PCBBS (?), but liked Wildcat best of all.
At the time I was using US Robotics Courier HST modems which, when
using the HST protocol, gave a whopping 14.4k vs 9600 for v.32.
Those were the good old days .
>
>Linux is like a mirror, what you get out of it will be a reflection of what
>you put in.
I've put many hours into it trying different distributions and such
and I have always ended up with what I consider an inferior system
from a usability point.
Maybe I need a bigger mirror?
Claire
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: It's official, NT beats Linux (?)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 13:25:39 GMT
Impartial benchmarks seem to point to NT as far superior...
http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,1015266,00.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Does Linux have core design flaws?
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 13:32:53 GMT
Hello,
With reference to the article comparing NT to Linux:
(http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,1015266,00.html)
Is the poor Linux performance due to core design issues that cannot be
overcome (ie threading), thus limiting it's potential threat to NT?
Thanks,
Keith
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 13:35:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >Well, I did: you are confusing the suid bit and the sticky bit.
> >Of course you are confusing them because they are not the same
> >thing, and if someone told you they were the same thing, he was
> >wrong, too.
>
> I'm so glad there's so many people who can be so illuminating and so
> useless at the same time. [oops, forgot the 'sarcasm' tags]
You specifically asked (in a part you deleted) if that allegedly
competent person who explained you the suid and sticky bits was wrong.
I answered your question: yes he was wrong.
Yeah, I know, answering must bring punishment, right?
> >> >Go to the nearest unixy system, and do a man chmod, please!
> >>
> >> Sorry, I've already done that at least seven dozen times in my
career,
> >
> >Ok, you would also have to read the docs, and have enough background
> >to understand them. Since you have not understood them, I must guess
> >you failed in one of those two.
>
> I know that it only proves that I am of limited capabilities and
> patience, and not even terribly even tempered at the moment, but I've
> gotta say it.
I am aware of your limits by now, I guess.
> I am so SICK of some of you people and your silly and rather pathetic
> *bullshit*. You may all feel quite comfortable and secure thinking
that
> this repeated pattern of "Max says something clueless, and takes
twenty
> posts before he'll stop defending it" is an accurate perception, but
the
> fact is that I ask question and state opinions in other settings as
> well, and have found no group of people so eager to ridicule and slow
to
> catch on or even try to grasp any novel consideration as I have here
in
> COLA.
There's nothing wrong with stating opinion. But "the suid and sticky
bits are the same" is not an opinion, it's just a wrong fact.
You can debate until you turn blue, but noone who knows the subject
will react in any way but "no, that's not so". Only a devoted
follower of Foucault or something like that would even care about such
an opinion.
> Being a huge fan of Linux, I'm not terribly content with that, so I'm
> afraid you've bought yourself a whole heap of Max on this group. I
have
> no reluctance to hound to extinction those who resolutely refuse to
> allow reasoned, even civil, conversation, whether they're experts on
> something or not, and whether they are in an advocacy group or not.
Yeah, that's just what a civil person would do. Max, you seem to be
quite deluded about how you look. You act like a lunatic who is
convinced he is civil.
> I'm
> here to advocate reason and the *honest*, courteous, and free flow of
> information from anyone who has it to anyone who doesn't. If that
means
> bearding the lion in his den, and pointedly trying to influence the
> actions of others through persuasion and argument in the one situation
> least conducive to gentle and informative discourse, the Usenet
> comp.*.advocacy groups, then so be it.
>
> # chmod 777 foofile;ls -l
> -rwxrwxrwx 1 root other 0 Aug 7 20:22 foofile
> # chmod +s foofile;ls -l
> -rwsrwsrwx 1 root other 0 Aug 7 20:22 foofile
> ^ ^
> ^--^--------- "setuid bit" (Execute permission with setuid set)
Yes. In another post I told you the s in the permission part of
ls -l was the suid bit.
> # chmod -s foofile;ls -l
> -rwxrwxrwx 1 root other 0 Aug 7 20:22 foofile
> # chmod +t foofile;ls -l
> -rwxrwxrwt 1 root other 0 Aug 7 20:22 foofile
> ^
> ^------------------ "sticky bit" (Capital 'T' when execute
> not already set)
yup. In another post I told you the t in there was for sticky.
> # chmod +s foofile;ls -l
> -rwsrwsrwt 1 root other 0 Aug 7 20:22 foofile
> # chmod 666 foofile
> # chmod +t foofile;ls -l
> -rw-rw-rwT 1 root other 0 Aug 7 20:22 foofile
>
> The sticky bit is presented in place of the "world execute"
permission,
> represented with a 'T' (if world doesn't have execute permissions) or
a
> 't' (if world does have execute permissions). The setuid bit being
set
> changes the owner and group execute permissions to 's' instead of 'x'.
> The world execute permission is unchanged by setting the setuid bit
> (other than the use of 't' or 'T'.)
That's because s without x makes no sense.
> Apparently, having a Master's Degree in Computer Science does not
> guarantee that someone knows the difference between a setuid and a
> sticky bit.
Yup. Even a short course on unix admin would guarantee it, though.
But I've heard of people getting a masters in CS without
ever taking one.
> While the engineer who first explained this to me
> (unrefuted by years of work after that, for the simple reason that the
> issue doesn't come up all that often, and when it does it involves
> either the sticky bit, or the setuid bit, not both) did express some
> reservations of expertise. IIRC, in response to the question "what's
> the 's' for?", the response was "I *think* that's the sticky bit, or
> something like that."
So, he was ignorant. And you didn't learn. We are not ignorant (in this,
at least). Why do you bother explaining to us, who already know?
BTW: I would consider someone who admin'd a real production unix
box with this level of ignorance, dangerously incompentent.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Randy Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.windows2000,alt.linux,alt.windows98,alt.linux.os
Subject: Re: - Windows has made me stupid !!! Thanks, Bill. (Windows is worst than
Crack-Cocaine) - (I got to say it again!!!)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 08:53:33 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >Linux is like a mirror, what you get out of it will be a reflection of what
> >you put in.
>
> I've put many hours into it trying different distributions and such
> and I have always ended up with what I consider an inferior system
> from a usability point.
>
> Maybe I need a bigger mirror?
>
> Claire
Unfortunately, time isn't the only determinant.
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's official, NT beats Linux (?)
Date: 9 Aug 2000 13:54:05 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Impartial benchmarks seem to point to NT as far superior...
: http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,1015266,00.html
Your "impartial benchmark" is over a year old:
June 25, 1999 3:45 PM ET
Don't you have anything a little more current?
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Linux have core design flaws?
Date: 9 Aug 2000 13:59:25 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Hello,
: With reference to the article comparing NT to Linux:
: (http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,1015266,00.html)
: Is the poor Linux performance due to core design issues that cannot be
: overcome (ie threading), thus limiting it's potential threat to NT?
No. Linux beat Windows 2000 in the latest SPECweb benchmarks
according to:
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-07-05-001-04-OP
(dated July 5, 2000)
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 13:45:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> > > Actually, no. His original work was a scholarly work.
> >
> > Care to cite the name of that work?
> >
> > > The Catholic Church went absolutely bonkers and did everything
short
> > > of calling for his head on a platter.
> >
> > They did not. They used the standard language of the age for this
kind
> > of thing. Of course it was a bit more, let's say, colorful than it
> > would be today.
> >
> > Going bonkers would be what happened with Giordano Bruno, not
Galileo.
> >
>
> And what would the Church have done had Galileo not recanted?
Probably life imprisonment, or death. Probably not by burning,
though.
> > When you are supposed to be the guardian of the word of the creator
of
> > the universe, there is no light way of reacting to someone who
> > opposes that word. The church literally had no choice of action,
> > short of (in their own eyes) apostasy.
> >
>
> That's the problemwith being such a guardian, isn't it. The Church
> chose such a position, and if such a choice necessitated censorship,
> then the Church deserves the blame.
Yours is a typical modern day reaction to the past. You are applying
today's metrics to a ancient action.
Again, try to consider the church's point of view many centuries ago.
There were many religions, conflicting. If noone stood for the
word of god (and they honestly believed they did, and that word was
infalible and true and right), that would have been a sin of omission.
That was a sin against GOD, who they believed would condemn them to
hell. They believed NOT burning the heretics was immoral!
Galileo's trial, no matter how awful it seems from our porspective,
was really a honest mistake. A terrible one? Sure. But was the church
acting unethically? Probably not. Illegally? Surely not.
Who knows what of what we do today will make us monsters in the eyes
of the 25th century?
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 13:47:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >It was the commonly accepted position at the time that such was the
> >church's job. Since it was divine right that validated secular
> >authority, it was all pretty coherent.
>
> Nobody ever suggested it wasn't coherent, Roberto. Are you suggesting
> it wasn't wrong?
>From our point of view? Sure, it was wrong. From theirs? I am not sure.
Are you a moral absolutist, by chance?
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 13:53:35 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> >> Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >So netscape and photoshop are derivative of any plug-in some clown
decides
> >> >to write at some time in the future right? I don't think you've
thought
> >> >through all of the consequences of your position. It leads to
things
> >> >the FSF could never desire.
> >>
> >> You've completely switched contexts and expect your presumptions to
> >> follow? Hang on a sec'. Plug ins are not to applications as
programs
> >> are to libraries.
> >
> >Plugins are usually implemented as dynamically loaded libraries.
> >So, in most cases plugins ARE libraries, therefore plugins are
> >like libraries to applications in a trivial way.
>
> No, plug-ins are programs;
[ralsina@pc03 ralsina]$ file /usr/lib/netscape/plugins/libflashplayer.so
/usr/lib/netscape/plugins/libflashplayer.so: ELF 32-bit LSB shared
object, Intel 80386, version 1, not stripped
Looks like a library to me.
> the application under them are libraries.
> Both are often predominantly implemented as "libraries" of course, but
> that is the point of the issue. You seek to make distinctions where
> none exists; software is source code; how you use it is not
definitive.
Ok, there is a definition of library, and you are not using it.
Could you tell me which one you ARE using?
> [...]
> >> >Works need not be complete.
> >> You say that as if its true.
> >You say that as if it is not?
>
> Its not. If a work is not complete according to the intent of the
> author or the anticipated satisfaction of the consumer than it is not
a
> "work", but a work-in-progress. That all modern software is a work in
> progress, never complete because a new version is substantively
> dissimilar, is yet another point of conflict, not justification, of
> software copyright.
WHAT? I have read the definition of work used in copyright law.
I saw no reference to such a thing.
> >> >A library is a work.
> >> If somebody says that it is, then I guess it must be.
> >Why wouldn't a library be a work? At least those who say it is
> >can point to a bazillion copyrighted libraries, who are considered
> >works already.
>
> No, I'm afraid that wouldn't do it. A work is complete when it is
> licensed for production. Once its been paid for by a consumer, the
> situation is rather self-evident in most cases. But each case must
> stand alone; similarity to complete works is not sufficient cause to
> consider a work complete.
So, you say, some libraries are works, and some are not.
> [...]
> >> If you are considering things like compiling, you've definitely
missed
> >> my point. But at least you did get near it. No, whether a
library's
> >> source code will compile is not necessarily (but could be, you are
quite
> >> correct) what makes it a "work". Compiling is not publishing.
Selling
> >> is publishing.
> >
> >Actually, distributing, not selling, is publishing.
>
> No, selling is publishing. You most obviously have to distribute in
> order to sell, but whether you do it before or after the transaction
is
> irrelevant. Selling is publishing, clear and simple.
Distributing is publishing. Else, free software would never be
published, and the free newspaper they give me in the subway
would not be a published work (which it is, it's registered in the
national library (like your congress library) and all).
If free software is never published, how could it be licensed?
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 14:00:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said John W. Stevens in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >JS/PL wrote:
> >>
> >> There's nothing holding them back, software has about the lowest
> >> barriers to
> >> entry of any market on earth, at least it does now.
> >
> >That turns out not to be the case.
> >
> >Interoperability is an important factor in the market place, and the use
> >of secret, proprietary interfaces makes the barrier to entry very, very
> >high.
>
> I think, along those lines, the consideration of modern commercial
> software as protected by both copyright and trade secret licensing makes
> the barrier more than 'high'; it literally makes it insurmountable, and
> to an effect which makes a mockery of both copyright and trade secret
> law and substantially inhibits innovation, competition, *and*
> cooperation, and materially implements restraint of trade in doing so.
Not necessarily.
One could just as easily argue that good copyright and trade secret
protection is necessary for companies to put the money into good
commercial software.
Neither position could be very easily proven, but consider how many open
source packages are the equivalent of Photoshop or Quark or even
Microsoft Office.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
