Linux-Advocacy Digest #583, Volume #28 Wed, 23 Aug 00 02:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: GNOME/KDE issues (was: Come on, Jedi, where are you?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates) (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GNOME/KDE issues (was: Come on, Jedi, where are you?)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:16:19 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:09:01 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Plus there are legal complications.
Are these private complications? If you think there are some legal
complications in cloning QT, I'd like to hear some more details on the
matter.
> Besides, it's the core development team that has to eventually
> commit to an alternative library. Even a feature complete
> version of Harmony won't achieve that.
What's Harmony? And wouldn't a 'feature complete' version of QT
suffice?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:20:54 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>> > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>> > > > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>> > > > > > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Occasionally, vulgarity is the appropiate answer. Why should
>> I restrain my means of expression.
>
>Note: dangerious ground, using that argument to defend vulgarity could be
>setting the foundation to use it to defend the using any insulting
>expressions here, including racial slurs, religious slurs, and ethnic slurs.
Only if "a racial slur is the appropriate answer", and I can't see that
happening, honestly. Use of vulgarity is quite appropriate in some
situations. Racial, religious, or ethnic slurs are not.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: Chad Irby <[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?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 04:24:49 GMT
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But the funniest thing of all is that you've wasted cumulatively an
> estimated 5000 hours of your life on the subject and they are going to
> skate. :-)
Suuure they are.
Just like "Microsoft will never get in trouble for this because they
didn't do anything wrong."
Just like "The case against Microsoft will never get anywhere because
the government will realize they don't have a case."
Just like "Microsoft will never lose this trial because there's no
evidence."
And just like "They'll never split up Microsoft, because the penalty is
too harsh."
Yeah... good track record you got going for you, there...
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[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?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 04:31:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > ZnU wrote:
> >
> > > > > > You're setting up strawmen again. I haven't said a word about
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > timeframe to pay off the national debt.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Upon maturity of the outstanding Treasury bills, you idiot.
> > > >
> > > > Why do you keep repeating that when it has nothing to do with
> > > > anything
> > > > I've said?
> > >
> > > It does---you're merely to ignorant to see the connection.
> >
> > It doesn't. Please explain how Bush intends to pay off the national
> > debt
> > while deficit spending. You seem to be arguing that he can. If you're
> > not arguing that he can, then you're not arguing with anything I've
> > said.
>
> What makes you so sure he will be deficit spending? (At least, that his
> will be any worse than Gore's.) Yes, he is cutting more taxes than
> Gore, but he is also spending less than Gore on programs like health
> care.
And spending more than Gore on things like (broken) missile defense.
The fact is, I don't _know_ he'll be deficit spending. He's so vague on
the issues that it's hard to tell anything at all. But he'll either be
deficit spending or he'll be cutting killing rather important social
programs, and neither is worth it just to give the average american
family a $43/year tax break. And there's certainly no chance of him
paying down the debt.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:34:05 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Doesn't ring a bell. I must have read it very quickly.
>> Anyway, if I told you to fuck yourself over this email, indeed
>> it was unwarranted. I don't know what got into me.
>
>Alright I will accept that as a apology ;-)
And well you should. Having now seen this email, in another repost, I
can say that it is my opinion, at least, that Roberto was probably
acting incorrectly when he responded to it with "Fuck you", but I can
honestly say that I *could* see it getting that response, even from
someone less pig-headed than Roberto. You were calm and correct
throughout, 'mjcr', but the context of your 'chastising' the generally
elitist Roberto quite easily provoked an emotional reaction. The
cogency of your argument would have been lost, in that case, but there's
reason to believe that it was lost anyway.
I hate to say that the 'verbal knife-fights' on Usenet advocacy groups
might actually have a purpose, but the contrast of the quite correct
"Linux should belong to those who build it" and the equally correct
"Everyone contributes in a GPL world" does point out and make useful the
dichotomy of this issue.
Forgive me for rambling, but I've always been conflicted, myself, with
the desire to scoff at those who refuse to learn and a disgust for
elitist arrogance. And if any pair of posters represent the closest
thing to a direct clash between the two, its you two, at least as far as
I've seen so far.
So thanks for your time, and hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 00:53:08 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
[...]
>> >Hmmm... KDE doesn't seek to extract profit. So no.
>>
>> That's what I don't understand. Does QT seek to extract profit?
>
>Qt is a piece of software, it has no intentions.
>If you mean TT, the company that writes Qt, I suppose they do.
>They are not KDE, though.
Yea, well, I guess the soft-pedalling "I suppose" and the fact that it
took a can-opener to get you to admit it tends to expose the fact that
not only is this the root of the problem, but *you know* it is the root
of the problem. Now, I can understand that you aren't QT, and you
aren't even KDE (itself or an investor) and you're just a guy who makes
a living doing what you do. But within the context of the situation,
which includes Linux, and GPL, you are using a pretense of ignorance in
not recognizing why it is, precisely, that you get dozens of hate mails
a week. This *is* an ethical issue, at least to some people. Is it
*really* only die-hard-delusional FSF fans who see it as a holy crusade
to stamp out KDE? Obviously, these are the ones that disrupt irc and
send you hate mail (neither of which are ethical in this circumstance),
but you do know, don't you, that an appreciable number of everyone who
knows the facts of this issue at least understands the anti-KDE
sentiment, even if they do not actually sympathize or empathize with it.
If its just the flakes, as extreme and active as they are, then it is a
moral issue, and I encourage you to hold your ground. But if the
general consensus would be, if everyone knew all the facts, that QT,
through KDE, is seeking to profiteer on the success of GPL software,
then it *may* be an ethical decision that you have to make, and be
responsible for, even if its a really good job and you don't want to
lose it.
[...]
>> By using QT you invest effort into limiting the liberty of the users of
>> your product.
>
>No. I grant the users whatever freedom I feel like granting.
The freedom of the users is not yours to 'grant', Roberto, and I do not
mean that as merely a rhetorical device.
>To "reduce" their freedom, they would have to come from a previous
>situation where they had more freedom than I gave them. Their
>previous situation was "not having my product", so they don't.
Previously, they were not required to pay QT a licensing fee in order to
benefit from Linux. In some situations, that freedom has been taken
away from them, or burdened with the cost of migrating away from KDE,
which may have benefit for them. You're holding them up, blackmailing
them, kidnapping their access, whatever metaphor you might wish to use.
Their previous situation was "not having to use QT", not they do. And
your product is responsible for that.
>> If the only reason you have to use QT is that it works,
>> and you like it, and you're familiar with it, and the only reason you
>> have to avoid using QT is that you get hate mail for using it, I would
>> think you'd have enough professional pride to question more strongly the
>> choice to use QT.
>
>Why? I don't make decisions about how I spend my free time
>based on hate mail.
You should recognize your ethical mandate to consider the opinions and
facts which others have to offer. It isn't your free time which is at
issue; it is your working time.
>> I know it isn't necessarily only your personal
>> decision, and wouldn't go so far as to suggest that your ethical
>> response should be to quit KDE, but it might be more like
>> "pigheadedness", rather than, as you said "a strong ego" which prevents
>> you from considering this issue more seriously.
>
>I considered them seriously. I decided it was not worth it.
OK. Its your decision to make. I won't second-guess you. But I will
not use KDE, and will recommend to anyone else that they avoid it as
well. Its a wolf in sheep's clothing. Though a balancing issue would
be, of course, the level of profiteering being done. The modern world
is filled, after all, with 'trade secret' software. QT doesn't even
stand out on the Linux platform, in truth.
So tell me, just what kind of licensing fees does QT demand? If its low
enough, I might figure its worth it, as you did.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:02:14 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:17:01 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>Hmmm... KDE doesn't seek to extract profit. So no.
>>
>>That's what I don't understand. Does QT seek to extract profit?
>
>QT seeks to profit by requiring those who develop proprietary software
>with their library to pay for the "professional edition". So yes, they
>do seek to extract profit, but that doesn't mean that QT is not free.
You mean there is no per-copy licensing fees? Well, that's a slightly
different story then. But it does bring into question where those who
produced KDE are expecting to make up for the cost. Dammit, *somebody*
should be making money. Where's it coming from?
>>By using QT you invest effort into limiting the liberty of the users of
>>your product.
>
>No more than you do by using GPL'd software.
Then why isn't it GPL?
>Look, could you at least make some effort to have some idea what you are
>talking about before you post this kind of drivel ? Seriously, you have
>no place making these kind of comments when you do not know anything about
>the license that you are criticising.
Well, call me the official representative of the clueless, then. I read
a lot, and I'm in the industry, and I am both generally knowledgable and
relatively smart. I know it tends to piss people off when I admit that
I use these discussions, in fact, as the most expedient and (bizarrely
enough) efficient method of finding out what is going on. You see,
there's a couple billion people out there that have an intense interest,
in brief spurts, in what the few hundred or thousand "cognoscenti" know.
And I'm hoping to sell it to them, in my own words. So forgive my
'balls' in posting 'drivel', but I am not going to apologize for not
knowing something that an average person wouldn't know. An average
person, you'll have to admit, is going to be a *lot* more clueless than
I am.
[...]
>You're forgetting that Roberto, and the KDE people use QT because it is
>FREE SOFTWARE.
Maybe "free" as in "free beer", but not *quite* free as in "free
software".
>>"pigheadedness", rather than, as you said "a strong ego" which prevents
>>you from considering this issue more seriously.
>
>This comment is a bit much, coming from someone who doesn't even understand
>what "this issue" actually is. Perhaps you should consider "this issue"
>more seriously ( by that, I mean, at least understand the implications of
>the QT license ) before hurling insults at Linux developers.
It was a reference to another thread (or another threadlet in this one;
who keeps track these days?), so it sounded like a lot more than it was.
So, if you would be so kind, could you explain "this issue", in your own
words?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:11:54 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
[...]
>> >> Maybe you should clarify. AFAIK, KDE requires the 'consumer' to agree
>> >> not to copy certain libraries. This is not free software. Please
>> >> correct me if I'm mistaken in either regard.
>> >
>> >You are mistaken.
>>
>> Then please correct me. I don't recall asking "please contradict me
>> with no explanation if you think I am mistaken". Stop being a troll,
>> for christ's sake.
>
>Well, I would have expected this to be obvious, but let's take the long
>road:
>
>You are mistaken, KDE doesn't require the consumer not to copy certain
>libraries, and never has required such a thing.
Stop being a pigheaded troll. If you want to posture ignorance, there's
lesser fools you can bother. I'm not going anywhere, though; if it
takes a long road, that's your fault entirely.
So what did they require, what does QT require, what did they require,
what did they change, when did they change it, what didn't they change,
why didn't they change it, how much is the "professional edition"
license, and where do you plan to make that money back? Others have not
been so reticent in providing information, you see, and this only
highlights how difficult you are being in this discussion.
[...]
>> The FSF rhetoric, probably, or a media report of the same. This is an
>> old post you're responding to, though. I recalled more of the details
>> concerning QT and the non-commercial nature of KDE while reconsidering
>> the matter.
>
>Ok, no, KDE is not a directly commercial venture, and we are not seeking
>to make money on distributing our development.
"Ok, no?" I've already said that. Why are you stalling? You know I'm
not going to give up, and others will provide 'alternative' explanations
whether you do or not. So give it up: what *are* you seeking to make
money on. I doubt they're paying your salary through philanthropic
sentiment.
[...]
>It's so free you could link it to GPL code, and the GPL would
>be the license deciding the distribution restrictions.
Well, see, that's true of *all* software, according to the FSF. So the
only piece of information in your statement is that there are some other
things which prevent it from simply being GPL. I hate when I find
information only in the breach; could you (or somebody) tell me what's
going on?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:13:03 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
[...]
>> GNOME was a reaction to the licence of libqt. It's basically
>> "KDE without the commercial library underneath". There are
>> other personal difference beyond that but that was the initial
>> motivation.
>
>And still, that doesn't say anything close to "KDE is a directly
>commercial venture".
Well, yes it does, Roberto. Does QT pay your salary?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: "Christopher Smith" <[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?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:28:21 +1000
"Karel Jansens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, Christopher Smith wrote:
> >"Courageous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
>
> >
> >> Whether or not the competition would have or could have trounced them
> >> is a different discussion. Anticompetitive behavior is illegal,
> >> particularly for a company in Microsoft's position.
> >
> >*sigh*. You're missing the point.
> >
> >No one has come up with a compelling alternative. The closest were
MacOS,
> >accessibility to which was historically quite expensive, and OS/2 which
was
> >in a similar situation wrt to cost and also "anti-marketed" by IBM before
> >about 1994.
> >
> Do you actually have any notion whatsoever about OS/2's market share prior
to
> the "launch" of Windows 95?
Not a clue. I was part of it, but I wouldn't have any idea what it was
like.
Compared to today, I'd imagine it was huge.
> >Neither of these results were Microsoft's fault,
> they were, respectively, >Apple's and IBM's.
> >
> It seems to me that quite a few people who are "in the know" disagree to a
> large extent with your opinion.
Funny how the only people who you think are "in the know" agree with you.
How was it Microsoft's fault OS/2 required at _least_ twice the hardware
resources of Windows to run ? How is it Microsoft's fault Macs were
incredibly expensive ?
> >I am an ex-OS/2 user btw, and a somewhat bitter one (against IBM) at
that.
> >I migrated to NT4 during Feb 96 (beta 2) because it was clearly the
better
> >solution - faster, stabler, better hardware support and more software.
> >
> Actually, of the four arguments you mention, only the last one is valid,
and
> then only if we explicitly _not_ mention the adjective "quality".
They're all valid. Whether or not you want to agree is irrelevant.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:30:50 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:20:44 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>I'd just wish you understood the literary aspects of software enough to
>>know that requiring QT is counter-productive, possibly in the extreme.
>
>I believe Roberto understands the issues here, having spent the last two
>years or so getting more than an earful about them.
>
>Please be aware of the difference between "do not understand" and "do not
>agree".
Well, I'd have to say that the term 'literary aspects' makes the concept
rather self-evident. If you actually understand them, you agree.
>>with you, but with the investors, that is my point. If they are trying
>>to build a product they can give away and make money on some secondary
>>'market', as is the case with most GPL projects, that is fine. If they
>>are attempting to monopolize the 'market' for Linux GUIs, it is not
>>fine. If the former is true, however, I don't see why they would be
>>satisfied basing their production on a library that limits the
>>distribution of their software.
>
>The GPL also "limits" "distribution". I'm not clear on who "they" are.
>KDE are not trying to make a profit. Troll Tech ( the authors of QT )
>are trying to make a profit. The restrictions that the QT license imposes
>are for the most part less onerous than those imposed by the GPL.
Again, I'm sorry, but that just isn't possible. The term 'onerous'
might be subjective, of course, and from the developer's standpoint, the
freedom of GPL code might seem to be a sacrifice, and thus 'onerous'.
But the license itself merely guarantees absolute freedom of the
software, and places no greater (and can place no less) burdens upon it.
I don't want to re-tread the "RSM's Politics" thread, but several people
already have used this same description, and none of them have explained
what actually differences there are between whatever licensing QT has
and GPL. I have heard something of a great change which occurred to
satisfy objections from somewhere, and the whole thing is obviously
rather sordid. Which makes it all the more notable that you, also,
haven't actually defined what 'KDE' might be *apart* from Troll Tech
(thus explaining who Troll Tech is and what their intent might be, as
well as who KDE is, if abstracted, and their relationship to Troll Tech)
and also haven't explained any of the context of QT.
For all I've been able to find out up to this point (and routine
accusations aside, I do research the subjects I discuss to at least some
extent), KDE is nothing more than a wrapper for QT, and QT was written
purposefully to drive KDE, making all pretense that KDE isn't a
commercial endeavor absolutely meaningless, except to highlight the
dishonesty involved in the ruse.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:46:15 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
[...]
>> Well, there are plenty of people that have heard your
>> rationalization of your sig. We have heard your purpose
>> and effect bullshit story over and over.
>
>Provide proof to the contrary.
That's the point, Aaron. There can be no proof to the contrary; that's
the nature of 'selection bias' at work.
"Selection bias" is the tendency to remember those events which confirm
a theory, and forget those events which conflict with it. It is
inevitable, but mitigatable.
In this particular case, you have the added difficulty of having no way
of knowing, save in the breach, if your method is successful. If the
long chain of trolling you call a sig (I think it annoys people both by
the content, and by the fact it requires paging past in whatever 'single
key read' function one's newsreader supports) worked, then you'd never
have a chance to see if it worked in order to determine whether it
worked!. People don't magically stop posting to newsgroups because your
sig is in there, and it doesn't stop trolls from trolling. It might
remind them "oh, he's *that* asshole", but you *know* that whether a
troll takes that as a challenge or a warning is a rather random
determination. And, frankly, not even half the people I *recognize* on
your list are really trolls.
Believe me, son, you are no less annoying than Loren Petrich. And you
are no more correct in your opinions, in the end.
The last round of complaints I saw, your standard response was "stop
reading". Now that you realize, I hope, why that isn't good advice,
since many people have to page past a long sig like yours in 'single key
read' mode, you might reconsider. Think about it: you are demanding
special processing for *your* messages. And all the while, over and
over, when people have to skip over your sig, they're subjected to the
refuse of a dozen flame-wars, a mixture of disgusting and obnoxious in
proportions I have no interest in sorting out. Do you make it worth
their while to keep reading your posts?
Apparently not. At least three people have "plonked" you this week, and
those are just the ones you know about.
Maybe you should reconsider the sig, huh, dude?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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
******************************
