Linux-Advocacy Digest #504, Volume #28 Sat, 19 Aug 00 16:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anti-Linux/Pro-Microsoft Propaganda Campaign In Usenet (was: COMNA's favorite
conspiracy theorist rides again... ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come ("Mike")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Pat McCann)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Pat McCann)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (mark)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Pat McCann)
Re: Switch to NT? ("Mike")
Re: Anti-Linux/Pro-Microsoft Propaganda Campaign In Usenet (was: COMNA's favorite
conspiracy theorist rides again... (mark)
Re: refrigerator using Linux? (B'ichela)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anti-Linux/Pro-Microsoft Propaganda Campaign In Usenet (was: COMNA's
favorite conspiracy theorist rides again...
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 05:29:08 +1000
"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8nmkhh$qmc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8nmcnj$hhu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8nlu21$gud$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <8nk4id$s5e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:8nk3t3$e03$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> >> The point is that Funkenbusch has devoted a lot of energy
> >> >> in the last six months to justifying and excusing Microsoft's
> >> >> DR-DOS-killer message, and some of its other deceptive and
> >> >> coercive acts.
> >>
> >> >There wasn't a "killer message". There was a *non-fatal error
message*
> >in
> >> >the _beta_ displayed when non-MS versions of DOS were being run.
> >>
> >> That error message is colloquially known as the
> >> "DR-DOS Killer" because it was designed to kill
> >> *sales* of DR-DOS.
> >
> >Yeah, I can see how a message in a beta only a minority of customers
would
> >have access to would have an enormous impact on sales.
>
> The existence of the message was reported widely in the
> popular computer press, as Microsoft knew it would be.
Then blame the press for inaccurate reporting.
> >DRDOS had enough incompatibilities on its own.
>
> None that prevented it from running Windows.
Hindsight is always 20/20.
It could have, which was the point - it is not Microsoft's responsibility to
test or fix other people's software. Plus, given those problems it already
did have and Windows' intimate manipulations of DOS a _warning_ about non-MS
DOSes was hardly surprising.
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 19:19:31 GMT
"Jonathan Thornburg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8nm6ck$2vg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <aZwn5.8027$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Tim Cain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I'm a bit confused. How is anybody
> >supposed to earn a living from Linux/apps? One of the strong
> >motivators that I see quote re: use of Linux/Linux apps are
> >that they are free. Who is paying the piper?
>
> Look around the free-software community, and you'll see plenty of
> companies paying salaries to plenty of people. Names like "Red Hat"
> and "Cygnus Support" (now bought by Red Hat) come to mind. The MBA
> crowd use terms like "value added", "customer support", and "vertical
> solutions".
But Red Hat is still not making money. I think they could shift to a
profitable model, but it's not clear that they can continue to be a top tier
Linux developer if they do.
I've seen posts from various people over the past couple years about open
source companies that do make money. There must be some... can anyone point
to any - especially public companies - that are open source and profitable?
It seems like those are the companies whose business model you want to look
at. Where are they? What are they called?
-- Mike --
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.software.licensing
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 19 Aug 2000 12:30:41 -0700
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As I've observed
> before, this merely highlights the fundamental conflict of software as
> literary work by illustrating that the functional engineering benefit of
> shared libraries is counter to the purpose of copyright law itself.
...
> As an engineering feature, it is normal. As copyrighted material, it is
> an counter to the purpose of copyright.
A refresher:
The Congress shall have power [...] To promote the progress of science
and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors
the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
We're back to "intent". This time, I'm afraid, it's pertinent; and
legislatures (USC 17/117) and courts have determined (rightly or
wrongly) that limiting the above exclusive right promotes progress and
that is reflected in law. Mandatory permission to dynamically link
might be counter to the words of the Constitution but that is no longer
an issue. (There is other, better explained, mandatory licensing in
copyright law too.) But it is apparently not counter to the
legislature's and court's view of the purpose of copyright law nor their
implementation of that law.
Apparently, they thought that the Constitution's "exclusive right"
should have some limits (to promote progress, presumably). Hence 117.
That exclusive right could also be limited so that author A's exclusive
right doesn't effectively become a right over author B's work or other
activity. (Like if your license was conditioned on the license of a
program I wrote from scratch or the baseball team I supported.) That's
the way legislatures and courts think these days, like it or not.
Your telling me how I can "run" your work (NO DYNAMIC LINKING ALLOWED)
seems to go beyond what many find to be reasonable limits to your
exclusive right in that work. We're lucky that 117 seems to agree.
It'd be nice if we could get courts to rule without people having to
sue each other first.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 11:33:26 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I see your point, but I think you're still missing it. Since the
> subject of that discussion 'had nothing to do with KDE', then your
> reference to discuss Roberto's character ("It is more so a problem when
> the person showing a lack of basic respect for the long time users of
> Linux is a member of a official development team"), when he admits to
> showing lack of respect for some within the community which he feels
> don't merit respect, is an ad hominem attack (circumstance); you've
> noted Roberto's circumstance in order to avoid confronting his argument.
> More inverted than the classical approach, in which you might use
> Roberto's affiliation with KDE to directly impugn his opinion, but not a
> reasoned argument for your point, regardless.
>
> Perhaps I'm stretching, as I always seem to be doing (I'm afraid I can't
> prevent my brain from seeing dozens of connections to every concept, no
> matter how stupid that makes me seem) but the fundamental issue seems
> the same as the "every person in a business is a salesman and is
> responsible for projecting a good wholesome company image" crap which is
> so common today. It robs people of their right to be treated as
> individuals, and its a dangerous and widely accepted support for "the
> corporate mystique". Without disputing an employer's authority to fire
> someone for presenting public opinions contrary to the company's
> interests, I must insist that any use of the threat to fire them in
> order to mute their expression of their private opinion, merely because
> it *putatively* conflicts with the best interests of the company's
> attempt to maximize profits, is a violation of their civil rights.
You, appear to be arguing from a position of ingorance, since your
statements here make it appear that you have not read the threads that form
the source data of this discussion. Unless you have, your arguments here
are threories with no basis in fact. Far as I am concerned, without an
consulting the source data, this discussion is pointless and I consider this
thread fragment as terminated.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 19 Aug 2000 12:50:07 -0700
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >On 17 Aug 2000 21:26:48 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>Over time the sentence "a library/plug-in linked to GPLed code with the
> >>intention of avoiding the GPL is really a derivative work of the GPLed
> >>code" seems to have changed to the bizarre "any two code segments linked
> >>together are derivative works of each other".
> >>
> >And with good reason. No one can figure out any substantive difference
> >between the two.
>
> Good point. Kind of like whether either code segment might be a "work"
> in its own right.
Of course they are (copies of) works. The question was whether the mere
running of them forms a new work (which would be a derivative). It
might be a moot question, though, because C's running of A's GPLed
library and B's partial-program shouldn't impose the GPL on B. After
all, B might have written his program to work with a proposed public
domain library that just happened :^) to have the same API.
I guess the question could be expanded to as whether the mere creation
of B's work (partial-program) matching the library's API creates a
third (derivative) work. That seems preposterous for the same reason.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 20:48:54 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee) wrote in
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>>Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8njvlo$q8p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>>
>>>>8<SNIP>8
>>>>
>>>>>> Yep, Linux does provide a good path to powerful OSes like AIX.
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually, I was thinking along the lines of going to a more powerful
>>>>>equipment on the same family of hardware if that cannot help you can
>>>>>move from a microcomputer running Linux to a minicomputer running Linux
>>>>>or even to a mainframe running Linux. That is something that cannot be
>>>>>done with Windows NT. My posting was a little joke that was also
>>>>>intended to highlight that major difference.
>>>>
>>>>What sort of proof do you have that WindowsNT could
>>>>not be adapted to run on many different classes of
>>>>hardware?
>>>>
>>>>No, _WE_ can't do it, because it's closed source,
>>>>but that doesn't mean that it empirically cannot
>>>>be done.
>>>
>>>I keep wondering about this line of reasoning. Linux
>>>'DOES' run on all the classes of hardware mentioned,
>>>Windows NT, at the moment, 'DOES NOT' run on all the
>>>classes of hardware mentioned. We (the Linux advocates)
>>>see that as a situation of 'what can we reasonable expect
>>>from the platform'. It appears that Windows advocates see
>>
>>Fair enough. I have no qualms about that.
>>
>>>that as, "What is the possibility that the platform cannot
>>>be changed in the future?" While both arguments hold some
>>>logic, we are talking about what *is* against what *could
>>>be*, and as such, it is two different discussions.
>>
>>That isn't too far from my point either. mjcr
>>seems to be portraying "does not" to mean "cannot".
>>
>>I know that "could be" != "is". I never stated
>>otherwise.
>>
>>>We don't have proof that it *can't* be done, but we do
>>>have proof that it 'hasn't yet' been done. When it is
>>>done, we won't bring it up. But until then, I don't think
>>>it is reasonable to expect us to accept that *is* against
>>>the *could be* argument. Sound reasonable?
>>
>>Absolutely. The only problem I have with mjcr's
>>statements is that he sounds as if he is implying
>>that it is "impossible" for WindowsNT to run on
>>such hardware. It's not. It's just not practical
>>for Microsoft to port it to such hardware.
>>
>>"Cannot" and "does not" mean two differnt things.
>
>I see where the confusion comes from, but I believe he was
>trying to say an NT *administrator* cannot do this today,
>but it could have been worded a little better I suppose.
>
No, this is simpler. NT cannot run on other hardware now.
It might be able to, or it might not. Until it does, it
is not possible to say any more. It is quite correct to
say that at the moment it cannot.
Can merely enables the do - ie., I do because I can. Well,
NT doesn't because it can't.
Unless the owner of the closed source takes a decision for
whatever internal reason to port at some point to other
hardware, in which case they may _or_ they may not be
successful.
Perhaps another way of looking at this would be to consider
schroedinger's cat; this is similar - it is not possible to
know if it can or cannot be done until it has been done.
I guess that'll make everyone really happy with me :)
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
"A compiler is a program that takes the pseudo-English gibberish produced
by a programmer and turns it into the sort of binary gibberish understood
by a computer." Linux for the uninitiated ... by Paul Heinlein
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 19 Aug 2000 12:57:16 -0700
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Reproducing the text,
> not replicating the work involved in creating it (along with a dash of
> originality, I must insist), is against the law unless I give you
> permission to 'use' it.
And, of course, you HAVE given it, whether you knew it or not.
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Switch to NT?
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 20:01:40 GMT
"Tom Backer Johnsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> ... And it can read and write MS Office documents, which is what you
> need. Another (but "owned" in the same sense as MS Office) alternative
> is WordPerfect Office, cheaper, leaner, reads and writes office
> documents as well
I can't speak for WordPerfect Office, but I can speak for Star Office. It
will read and write _simple_ Word documents. I have five test case files
that I use, ranging from a simple one page letter to a moderate complexity
file using tables, equations, and pages in landscape mode. Star Office can
only read the one page letter correctly. The errors in the others range from
not getting the page rotation correct to table translation to placing
graphics and embedded objects in different, often seemingly random,
locations. It also has problems displaying embedded objects, although they
seemed to print fine when I last tried. And, if you need to write Word
format files, you can't use the Star equation editor. This may also hold
true for other tools included with Star. Star does not write the equation in
a format that Word understands. In fact, I am unable to get Star to read
it's own equations correctly once the file had been saved in either Word
.doc format or Rich Text File (.rtf) format.
If you're serious about using Star Office, make sure you test it thoroughly
before signing off.
Tom, I know you were referring to WordPerfect Office when you said it was
leaner. For what it's worth, Star Office is not exactly lean. The full
installation on my machine takes 223MB, excluding shared files. When saving
relatively complex files, Star produces files that are more than twice the
size of Word. When saving very simple files, the Star files are less than
half the size. There's a trade-off point there somewhere, if it matters to
you. With drive space selling for around $10/GB these days, the file size
differences generally amount to a few dollars per year, and are probably a
moot point.
Star also takes longer to load (under Win2k), ranging in time from 15
seconds the first time it's loaded, and six seconds if it's still cached
from the previous time. Word takes about five seconds to load, and three
seconds on subsequent loads from cache.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anti-Linux/Pro-Microsoft Propaganda Campaign In Usenet (was: COMNA's
favorite conspiracy theorist rides again...
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 20:59:45 +0100
In article <8nk3t3$e03$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mark S. Bilk wrote:
>In article <8njkmq$7mp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote
>>>Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote
>>>>>Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<choppy>
>>>And Edwards has crapped up the c.o.l.a newsgroup with many
>>>thousands of nasty, pointless, and in some cases lying
>>>articles against Linux (mostly last year), and has given
>>>as his reason simply that he had nothing better to do with
>>>his time.
>
>>*LOL!@#*
>>
>>The only time I post to COLA is when some kooky little
>>worm like you posts his or her wankish viewpoints.
>
>Edwards posted about 500 articles per month to c.o.l.a
>last year. Readers can judge for themselves in DejaNews
>whether these were all in response to "kooky little worms
>wanking".
>
Now that's a _lot_ of worms ;)
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
"A compiler is a program that takes the pseudo-English gibberish produced
by a programmer and turns it into the sort of binary gibberish understood
by a computer." Linux for the uninitiated ... by Paul Heinlein
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (B'ichela)
Subject: Re: refrigerator using Linux?
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 14:44:01 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 19 Aug 2000 10:27:09 +0800, Dan Jacobson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What's this I read that even a refrigerator could be using Linux? To help me
>visualize this I've seen how a PC can control a
>modem, printer, GPS [Global positioning system]... so let's say the PC was shrunk
>down to fit into the refrigerator control panel
>brains; I suppose upon booting [i.e., when the AC cord is plugged in] there would
>be an /etc/profile type script that would
I don't know why any residential refrigerator would Need a
micro-controller. Perhaps commercial refrigeration (IE; supermarkets)
could use a centeralized control unit connected to smart controls via
SNMP.
Remember what controls a residential refrigerator is
temprature. If the compartment gets warm the compressor or gas burner
kicks in to cause a cooling. When it gets cool enough the compressor
or gas burner shuts down. This Is also true on commercial
refrigeration but often there is serveral compressors/gas burners to
operate and control for specific temperatures on the refrigerators or
frezzers, often several frezers and refrigerators.
Yes, some people use Natural gas or propane refrigerators.
both in Rvs, homes and in commercial sites.
Also your defrost cycle is controlled by a simple timer. Why
on earth would one want to make the home refrigeration system more
complicated then needed.
--
B'ichela
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
