Linux-Advocacy Digest #568, Volume #28 Tue, 22 Aug 00 17:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Pat McCann)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Anthony D. Tribelli")
Re: refrigerator using Linux? ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: It's official, NT beats Linux (?) (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: Linus says Mindcraft was accurate ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Gary Hallock)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 22 Aug 2000 13:17:47 -0700
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That 'thrashing around' as the treatise. Feel free to go over it and
> ask questions or make productive comments. Once you feel you have a
> strong grasp of the argument, you may feel free to post it on a web site
> or comp.software.licensing in your own words. Those are not my
> ambitions at the moment. I'm still working on the "do you understand it
> well enough to discuss it" part, which I consider a pre-requisite to
> even consider publishing it more formally.
The writing down of "it" is a great help (to all but extreme Geniuses)
in ariving at an understanding of "it". It is also a great help to
those whom you want to bounce ideas off in the tuning of one's
understanding. Part of the reason I understand your theories so poorly
is that I've never recognized a complete and supported presentation of
them to wrap my brain around. Trying to extract meaning from what I've
seen here in the last two weeks is not something I'm willing to devote
sufficient time to. Trying to discuss a small side-topic has been hard
enough.
BTW, you found my mention of "mandatory licensing" (as an example of
limitation or exception to the Constitution's "exclusive right" by law
makers) preposterous and asked me for proof in law. I gave you such
proof (the law used the term "compulsory licensing" and you seem to have
ignored it. Have you modified your theory so that it has room for
legislatures and courts which create law that doesn't match your
concepts of right and wrong (whatever you call it)? Could it possibly
BE that they have allowed unlicensed dynamic linking (as they have
"running") even though it is counter to your (or even the law's)
concept of "derivative" or of right and wrong (whatever you call it)?
I'm not asking if you think it IS (you've told us), but will you at
least admit that it COULD BE that they have allowed it (by 117)?
> The courts seem to be well aware that if someone doesn't sue, it cannot
> be considered infringement. Why do you think judges are always so
> careful to relate every single point of their decision to specific
> precedential cases?
If "it" is not considered, then I agree "it" cannot be considered
infringement (or non-infringement or anything else). So what?
Courts use precedent because that is their own private law. It is their
law mostly to create a stable system. A system in which courts made
some pre-emptive judgements concerning new legislation and regulations
could work quite well I think, but we'll never know. The courts could
select what they want to "correct" or they could rely on "petitions"
instead of waiting till people have bet their fortunes on uncertain law
or spent their fortunes getting their cases through the current system.
> Maybe some day I'll have the time and the reason to attempt to produce
> an actual scholarly text on the matter. As it is, I think your somewhat
> qualified acceptance of the argument will have to suffice, for now.
I in no way accepted your argument. I only implied that I thought that
I might understand what your argument is to some small degree.
> As a half-way point, you might consider Professor Litman's treatise
> "Copyright Non-compliance (or Why we can't 'Just say yes' to licensing)"
> at http://www.msen.com/~litman/no.htm
I will. Good of you to mention it. That's what I came here for.
> Sorry; I don't use any nonsensical or ambiguous words. I apologize for
> forgetting that you cannot say the same. (And I apologize further for
> what appears to be a blatant ad hominem attack, but is meant as a
> reminder that it is you ambiguous definition of ethics which is a
> problem, not the fact that mine is less so.)
There is no need to apologize for your forgetfulness there. I am not
so foolish as to claim I don't use any nonsensical or ambiguous words.
Apologies that come pre-attached to something that needs an apology are
meanless apologies. Save them for when you are contrite or at least
wait a decent interval before pretending contrition.
I agree that the problem is that your readers don't understand what you
write. I'll remind you that the greater burden is on the writer if he
is trying to do more than practice typing.
BTW, I didn't say you used nonsensical words. I said you used ambiguous
words nonsensically. Your word usage might sometimes make sense to you,
but they sometimes don't make sense to others, especially when they
commonly carry different meanings to various people at various times.
When you criticize my use of "moral", when I indicate that I expect you
to guess what I mean by that ambiguous term (since it was so obvious),
by throwing around more ambiguous terms without explanation you are
not helping the discussion.
> As a conceptual framework goes, I think being sensible and unambiguous
> about the difference between morals and ethics works very well, whether
> you wish to adopt it or not. Sorry if I was being "unconventional"
> again in using it to make my point.
Your just-posted discussion WAS helpful, as it helps inform discussions
with people who use philosophical jargon in forums where it it ambigous.
(It obviously doesn't remove their ambiguity, but it at least should
keep me mindful of the POSSIBLE meaning of their users.)
I'm going to resist the imulse to address the rationality of your
superiority claims, except to claim that your rationality is unreliable
if you think religion should be presumed to have nothing to do with
ethics or that your preferences affect public discourse.
Using the two words distinctively, as you probably think you do, doesn't
mean that you are using them unambiguously unless you know that your
readers have adopted (or at least will understand) your usage. You
might think "it" is unambiguous writing, but others might find "it" to
be ambiguous reading. There are good reasons for conventions. By being
"unconventional", you point may be found to be very dull.
Expect me to ignore further discussion of morals vs. ethics. Feel free
to continue your typing practice, though.
------------------------------
From: "Anthony D. Tribelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 22 Aug 2000 20:16:50 GMT
Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anthony D. Tribelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Untrue, you offered these as a form of evidence that WinNT was responsible
>>for the specific Yorktown failure being discussed.
>
> You keep discussing the specific incident in an attempt to vindicate
> NT ...
Wrong, I have only been discussing this one incident since my first post.
This is the only incident I have seen, or been offered, specific
information on.
> ... but I am discussing both incident and the overall use of NT on the
> Yorktown ...
Wrong, our exchanges began when I pointed out the Yorktown failure was an
application (or design) problem not an OS problem. You claimed it was an
OS problem and I asked for your sources. We have never debated the overall
use of WinNT for such applications since I do not think general purpose
operating systems, WinNT or Unix, should be used for such applications.
> ... The orginal context of this thread was the Navy's use of W2K
> in aircraft carriers. The overall use of NT on the Yorktown is
> pertinent to that original context ...
Yes, I merely challenged one piece of info that seemed to be more usenet
mythology than actual fact. I am not challenging the need to evaluate the
design of our warships. It may come as a shock to you, but pointing out a
problem erroneously attributed to WinNT and thinking the use of WinNT is a
good idea are two very different things.
> ... I don not believe the latter story
> about the specific incident and I argued that, but it is have also
> argued it is irrelevent in the light of the other facts.
Yes, you prefer the early speculation and disregard the statements of the
chief engineer on board the ship at the time, the software developer who
admits the error, and the news agency who originally reported the
speculation and pointed out the earlier article was a little premature.
Just keeping your 'facts' in context.
>>there is no information on what the effect(s) of these incidents
>>were,
>
> Three *consective* paragraphs directly quoted from the article:
>
> Ron Redman, deputy technical director of the Fleet Introduction
> Division of the Aegis Program Executive Office, said there have been
> numerous software failures associated with NT aboard the Yorktown.
>
> "Refining that is an ongoing process," Redman said. "Unix is a better
> system for control of equipment and machinery, whereas NT is a better
> system for the transfer of information and data. NT has never been
> fully refined and there are times when we have had shutdowns that
> resulted from NT."
>
> The Yorktown has been towed into port several times because of the
> systems failures, he said.
>
> That last paragraph is clearly in the context of the two above, and is
> telling you the effect of the failures. To deny this is a blatent lie.
The ship's systems comprise more than an operating system. The part or
parts of the system that failed were not identified. We don't know if he
is talking about the WinNT operating system itself or a WinNT based system
that consists of the WinNT OS and assorted Win32 applications. There is no
specific information here, unlike the specific incident where a database
corruption cascaded. We have no idea if this is an engineer who has seen
detailed analysis of specific failures or upper manager using words
loosely, where are the comments from the chief engineer aboard the ship
during these incidents? Or the comments from the software developers? Or
the press reports of these failures? WinNT itself may or may not have
failed during one or all of thee incidents, I don't know. What I do know
is that the one incident that was described seems to have involved blaming
WinNT prematurely.
>>If your reading comprehension skills were better you might have recalled
>>that I have never suggested that using WinNT, or any commercial general
>>purpose OS, UNIX or otherwise, was a good choice.
>
> I do recall that but quite franlky I really don't think you knew what
> you were talking about. You suggest using a "embedded solution where
> you apply power and the system is there in a second or two" We aren't
> even talking about embedded systems, were talking about operater
> consoles ...
Such consoles (remote terminals and LAN consoles from original article) do
not need to be general purpose computers running general purpose operating
systems with applications on a hard drive. I would favor hot pluggable CPU
boards with applications in ROM.
> ... I mentioned that in my response, with an elaboration of the
> difference and examples of what I have seen used in similar situations
> and you snipped it all out ...
I recall it being a tangent, my point was made that I didn't think any
general purpose OS was appropriate, WinNT or Unix, for some of the ship's
applications. I didn't think we needed to hypothetically redesign the
Yorktown.
> ... Also, it is quite clear from the article
> that one or more database servers is used for the Smart System, which
> can be a separate platfrom from the consoles, as long as the clients
> can interract thru some established protocol.
Agreed, I don't think general purpose computers and OSs are inappropriate
for all of the ship's applications. I just think they were overdoing
things.
> If you wouldn't recommend a general purpose commercial OS, then tell
> me what would you recommend to be used for an operator console to a
> smart system like that on the Yorktown?? ...
For LAN terminals and remote consoles probably a custom single board
design running something like VxWorks would be more appropriate than a
general purpose computer running a general purpose OS.
> ... The requirements would be a
> GUI that enables operation and maintenance personnel to fully manage
> the systems, inlcuding schematic displays of real time system status
> and health monitoring, command and control displays, ...
GUI's are not unique to general purpose computers and OSs.
> ... access to
> databases and any other applications needed ...
Database access is not unique to general purpose computers and OSs.
> ... For all of these you need
> an OS that is good for developing highly specialized custom
> GUI's ...
What is convenient for the developers is not necessarily what is best for
the sailors on board the ship.
> ... Absolute reliability is not required bacuase you will have
> multiple consoles, so if one console is down, you can access the
> system from another console or by alternate means. As long at it isn't
> so bad that operaters are pissing at the consoles all the time.
No, reliability is required. Unless a console is physically damaged a
sailor should have access from the terminal he/she happens to be in front
of.
> Also, what would you reccommend for a highly reliable and available
> database server. What is most widely used today for high reliability
> databases? Again, a single machine may go down, but all the data must
> be available say 99.999% of the time. I would like to hear what you
> recommend.
Evaluating and choosing database servers for a particular application is
not my field. Again, I have not said that general purpose computers have
no place on ship. A database seems appropriate, LAN terminals and remote
consoles do not.
Tony
==================
Tony Tribelli
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: refrigerator using Linux?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:37:01 +0100
>No, it's simply that I want my fridge to keep my food at the correct
temperature
>all of the time 24x7x365. I do not want to re-boot after installing
oranges.
Or a 'Green cheese of death' every 2 days.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: It's official, NT beats Linux (?)
Date: 22 Aug 2000 22:20:46 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Get into books. They are cheaper, they last longer, and nobody is
>throwing a hissy fit about buying the latest 'boy-band' type of book.
But now there's Harry Potter!
(pardon me if I've got the name wrong... I don't participate in these fads)
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linus says Mindcraft was accurate
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:53:06 +0100
>Why would you even want a LoseModem? It's a cpu-hog.
>
It may be a crap waste of cpu resources but most PC's bought for home use
currently include a modem and most of these are winmodems. It looks better
for someone who has just bought a machine and gets hold of a copy of linux
if all of their current hardware is supported and gives them no excuse for
blaming the operating system when they upgrade and find they can no longer
use their modem. Support for these modems can have other advantages - linux
drivers can do more than the windows ones and may be able to use these
modems as a telephone exchange for example, routing calls to any PC on the
network with a soundcard (try doing this under windoze). This seems to be
already in the process of being coded (www.linmodems.org).
Another thing that I often wonder is why does linux (also 'Arachne' DOS
browser, apple mac and most if not all non-babybill based machines) need to
have things like the DNS settings manually entered. Perhaps the teams behind
the linux ppp code could find a way to reverse-engineer the windblows ppp
code and work out how they do this automatically (and share the info with
apple and arachne labs).
------------------------------
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: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 20:37:23 GMT
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:57:06 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>> >
>> > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>> > > >
>> > > > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > >
>> > > > > I'm game, but be specific, or go fuck yourself.
>> > > >
>> > > > Now what did I say the earn a reply with that tone from him?
>> > >
>> > > Y9ou said something like that I disrespected the linux user base, or
>> > > some such. Can't tell, because you sniped it.
>> >
>> > Why it that a problem? Can't you read back the thread?
>>
>> Nope, lame expires.
>
>Setup your own server with decent expires.
Quite. It's not like setting up leafnode is exactly rocket science...
:-pppp
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 16:44:03 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> I still don't understand why you think this would even support my
> position. It is my contention that there are no "natural monopolies" in
> the way that the word "monopoly" is used in anti-trust law. It is true
> you need to act predatorially before your market position could be
> considered "a monopoly", but unless you can provide some example of a
> company which has a dominant market position and does not use it
> predatorially, I'm afraid you've got things backwards. I'm saying that
> you cannot acquire a monopoly through 'fair means', that's why "attempts
> to monopolize" are just as illegal has monopolizing is.
>
>
IBM clearly has a monopoly in the mainframe market. Hitachi, IBM's main
competitor for mainframes, lost most of it's market share to IBM with the
introduction of the S/390 G5 and with the introduction of the G6, IBM had
grabbed 95% of the mainframe market. Hitachi has now dropped out of this
market. Is IBM in violation of the law because of this? The answer is no.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:52:36 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:57:06 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >> >
> >> > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > I'm game, but be specific, or go fuck yourself.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Now what did I say the earn a reply with that tone from him?
> >> > >
> >> > > Y9ou said something like that I disrespected the linux user base, or
> >> > > some such. Can't tell, because you sniped it.
> >> >
> >> > Why it that a problem? Can't you read back the thread?
> >>
> >> Nope, lame expires.
> >
> >Setup your own server with decent expires.
>
> Quite. It's not like setting up leafnode is exactly rocket science...
Shut up, Jedi, this is grownup talk.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 20:45:15 GMT
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:40:59 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>>
>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:16:40 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Ostracus escribió:
>> >>
>> >> In article <8npd61$92c4b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Nigel Feltham"
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [deletia]
>> >>
>> >> So the fact that QT is available for the windows platform is only useful to
>> >> those who purchase the professional edition. I would bet even money that most of
>> >> the authors of "free" software will not "pony up" the money.
>> >
>> >You can port the free edition to win32. It should not be a terribly huge
>> >project. My personal guess is 2 guys two weeks.
>> >
>> >> GTK is "free" on both platforms.
>> >
>> >So would Qt if someone ported it :-)
>>
>> ...and when you port QT to Be or Win32 or MacOS who owns the result?
>
>You, of course (the "you" who did the porting). TT doesn't require
>anyone to grant them the copyright.
If you really own the "fork" then why bother with a distinct
licence? They could just go the 'Aladdin route' and be done
with any sort of controversy.
Given the complexities of contract law, 'free licence' proliferation
is really quite idiotic. The stakes are much higher in a contract.
So it makes more sense to have a few really well debugged licences
that represent each particular set of objectives.
>
>> There is infact a Be porting project for QT, it just can't seem
>> to attract any developers.
>
>Maybe noone cares.
Yet BeOS users seem to be rather vocal about their interest for
ports of gtk based applications, as well as simple posix1
utilities...
If QT/KDE were really the cat's meow, one would think that BeOS
users would be even MORE interested in it as they are using a
predominantly GUI based OS as is and obviously have no problems
with commercial licencing of core OS components.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:57:44 -0300
Roberto Alsina escribió:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >
> > On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:57:06 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> > >
> > >Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> > >> >
> > >> > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > I'm game, but be specific, or go fuck yourself.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Now what did I say the earn a reply with that tone from him?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Y9ou said something like that I disrespected the linux user base, or
> > >> > > some such. Can't tell, because you sniped it.
> > >> >
> > >> > Why it that a problem? Can't you read back the thread?
> > >>
> > >> Nope, lame expires.
> > >
> > >Setup your own server with decent expires.
> >
> > Quite. It's not like setting up leafnode is exactly rocket science...
>
> Shut up, Jedi, this is grownup talk.
Gah, sorry, I was too quick. I could setup leafnode, and have
setup INN a few times in my previous job as a university netadmin.
I don't want to do it, though.
Now I will go write 100 times: "not because jedi has in the past been
annoying, should I just brush him off, or mjcr will infer I disrespect
the linux user base".
On the other hand, if Jedi represents the linux user base, maybe
disrespect would be ok... nah, I'll just apologize.
Sorry Jedi!
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
