Linux-Advocacy Digest #896, Volume #28 Mon, 4 Sep 00 17:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to.
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a (Alan Boyd)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Bob Hauck)
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. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 16:26:52 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just to save you the effort, 'sfcybear'.
Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>In article <8p0fb3$26d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>What if? Big deal, you script the changes.[...]
>Where did I mention DHCP? [...]
>I can't see the nightmare scenario you suggest. [...]
>As for DNS being standard, it really doesn't matter what you point at [...]
It seems so painfully obvious that Stuart is reading press releases
instead of documentation that there's little reason to bother with him.
And then he starts the backpedaling. The consistency of this technique
is so god-damn baffling that I swear its a virus. Microsoft is a petri
dish, and now its gotten out; even the amateur astroturfers know how to
spin the 'ymmv' yarn to obscene proportions:
>Like I say in another post, if you want to simplify the DNS, use BIND
>8.1 (?) or later on your *nix box to provide the DNS infrastructure for
>Windows & *nix. There's more than one way to skin a cat, whichever
>fits your infrastructure best is going to be different for each
>instance. Where I work, we simply set up a subdomain nt.mydomain.com,
>forward everything else to the *nix DNS & no problem. I have yet to
>see a problem with this.
>
>I still don't see why you're making this out to be such a big issue.
>It would seem to me to be a lack of understanding on your part of the
>different ways of using Windows 2000 DNS.
That's a standard close, too. He used the same basic premise in the
last exchange, where he said:
>[...]The sort of BS
>you're putting up is why most people have problems with WinNT - they
>don't understand how it works.
The problem, of course, with WinNT and W2K, DNS, et. al, is that it
doesn't work. We seem to have a clue why, Stuart, and you don't. Would
you quite prattling on about your wondrous technology where you 'just'
rely on it to work in ways its known to fail?
It isn't because we don't understand it, Mr. Fox. It might be
proprietary, but it ain't magic. Its because we do understand it, and
know that understanding why it doesn't work isn't enough to make it
work. Quite weaving your fantasies where more amateurs might become
stupid from your example.
--
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: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 16:28:23 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>In article <8p0fmt$2gq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>Once again you misunderstand Matt. What I suggested there was to use
>the Unix version of BIND **only**, no Windows 2000 DNS at all. If you
>run a reasonably recent version of BIND (8.1 from memory) you can do
>this.
Why would I have to run a recent version of BIND?
>You seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill.
Why would screwing up DNS in a professional IT environment be considered
a molehill?
(Sorry, 'sfcybear', I just couldn't resist.)
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.anarchy,alt.atheism,talk.politics.misc,alt.christnet,alt.flame.niggers
Subject: Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to.
Date: 4 Sep 2000 14:19:19 -0700
Tim Palmer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Its' Labar day now and every Commy-loving Lie-nux Commy and his dog
: that cappitollists
[...]
Bartender! I'll have one of those!
--
*************************************************************
Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not
understand it. But if they called everything divine
which they do not understand, why, there would be no
end of divine things.
Hippocrates of Cos
*************************************************************
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux.sucks,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 20:31:30 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Simon Cooke wrote:
> So...you finally admit that Windows has a major design flaw
Uh... no, actually. I finally admit that CPM, DOS, Windows 3.1, 3.11, 95,
98, 98SE and Millennium have serious design flaws. THat is, if you consider
the lack of security serious -- and personally, I feel that this depends on
the application. For home use, the lack of security on a single-user OS
isn't that problematic -- though if people do stupid things like turning
their system drive into a web folder, even after being warned, it's their
own look-out.
Simon
------------------------------
From: Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 15:27:47 -0500
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "Alan Boyd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I always thought you should be able to drop a file onto a task bar
> > button and it should react the same as dropping it on the program name
> > in explorer.
>
> So what should the behaviour be when I drop a file onto the Word button on
> the taskbar ?
>
> Should it open the file in a new window ?
> Should it insert the contents of the file in the currently open document ?
> At the beginning or at the current cursor position ?
> Should it link to the file being dropped ? At the beginning or at the
> current cursor position ?
I thought I was clear about that.
> >it should react the same as dropping it on the program name in explorer.
--
"I don't believe in anti-anything. A man has to have a
program; you have to be *for* something, otherwise you
will never get anywhere." -- Harry S Truman
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 20:33:23 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Translation: M% left the bug in place.
Isn't the rm -rf /* bug still in place in most Unicies?
How come they didn't remove this?
Isn't the workaround "Don't run rm -rf /*"?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 20:34:42 GMT
"lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> So they haven't fixed the bug and there is no guarantee it doesn't exist
> in the new product?
It's not a BUG.
> How many documents are on the technet site?
Plenty. That's why it has a search engine.
> Why is it considered acceptable that an application could delete the
> system directory?
Why is it considered acceptable that the user be allowed to delete ANY
files?
RM, believe it or not, is an application. Why is it acceptable that RM be
able to delete the system directory?
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 20:41:44 GMT
"Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The source is available free of charge for anyone with such an
> interest to examine. The complete record of the progress is
> available to for all to download.
So, there's history documentation in there for every line, every change?
The idea was to know how difficult it was. First hand.
Simon
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 4 Sep 2000 20:43:05 GMT
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000 11:00:37 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> A possible true reason for KDE to have used Qt instead of
>>somethine else, since Matthias Ettrich, founder of the KDE project is a
>> > >Trolltech employee.
>> >
>> > Well this would only make sense if TT hired him before he founded KDE.
>>
>> Which they didn't. IIRC they hired him around the date of KDE 1.0, which
>> was about 2 years later.
>
>Reguardless of the timing, there is an apparent conflict of interest. Now
No. You said that the fact that Ettrich is a TT employee was possibly
the reason why he chose it for the KDE project.
Since his role in the KDE project predates his employment for TT, it is
not possible that his involvement in TT was the reason for his decision.
>try to argue that it is not possible that by selecting Qt, by standing by
>the choice in spite of public reactions,
I doubt it. Here's why:
(a) Public relations would not have caused a switch under any circumstances.
(b) Switching would result in defections and/or a fork in KDE.
(c) Switching would have been technically difficult.
(a) They wouldn't have chosen Qt in the first place if they didn't
have some ideological differences with the GNU/zealots. And I don't think
they'd just change their views because some GNU/zealots started beating
their drums. So I don't believe that they would have switched toolkits
over public relations alone, under any circumstances.
(b) I believe that a lot of KDE developers would have left the project
if they switched to something other than QT. After all, the KDE/GNOME
choice has always been about Qt vs GTK and the people who joined KDE in
the first place did so because they simply preferred Qt to GTK.
(c) KDE is intimately connected with QT. For example, many of the KDE
classes are derived from Qt classes. Changing the underlying toolkit
would not just require a rewrite of KDElibs -- you would probably
need to completely redesign the public interface.
> by making Qt a relativly well known
>library by it use in KDE, that he didn't ingratiate himself with Trolltech
>to the point that they hired.
So now, you wish to refine your argument, since the other argument
( regarding the reasons for Ettrich choosing QT ) has been debunked.
Very well.
It does not seem plausible that he stuck with Qt just to "ingratiate"
himself with TT. The reason why I say this is because leading developers
from several of the important projects are being hired by Linux companies.
Red Hat have hired GNOME developers. Someone's hired Alan Cox ( I think
Redhat again ). Mandrake have hired some developers ( KDE ).
So I'd suggest that by virtue of being the leader of an important project,
it was inevitable that he'd "ingratiate" himself with someone. The
only question is who.
> Also try to argue that the his being hired
>could not be viewed as an attempt to cement the connection between KDE and
>Qt so that KDE would not jump ship and use another library.
Nope. They couldn't do so anyway. See above.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 16:44:45 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Courageous in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>> Could certainly? Which is it? 'Certainly' goes with "would", not
>> "could".
>
>Only if you misunderstand language. "Could certainly," could
>be taken to mean "you could act, and if you acted, then certainly..."
>You seem to have a hard time with language. Why is that?
"Every word was once a poem.... Language is fossil poetry." Emmerson
My point is valid; the syntactically construct 'could certainly' might
make perfect literate sense, but literally, logically, it is
self-conflicted. If one could, one could certainly. That makes the
imperative intimation of 'certainly' meaningless, and provides 'could'
with even less of a strength of argument than it originally had.
I have a hard time with language because its fun. Its what language is
*for*, dammit.
>> I don't have to be Mother Theresa to be ethical. In fact, I
>> know very well that Mother Theresa both was and was not more unethical
>> than I am. Just because I don't run a soup-kitchen doesn't make me
>> selfish.
>
>You seem to think selfish is an epithet. You are no doubt selfish.
>We all are.
Actually, I think its a meaningless supposition used as a false label,
but that is why, in certain contexts, it is an epithet. To suggest that
selfish is not an epithet by default, in fact, even in the most
objective ethical constructs, would be a fallacy.
>> >You'll have to better define "reasonable" before we can talk about
>> >it, Mr. Devlin.
>>
>> If you believe that is so then I doubt we can talk about it.
>
>One thing is certain is that if you don't provide a context for
>what is "reasonable" or what is not, you've left it utterly
>subjective.
You're starting to catch on, it appears, so your statement itself must
then be invalid. ;-)
>> You don't have to call me 'Mr. Devlin', BTW; 'Max' is fine. Just so
>> you'll know I noticed, 'Courageous'. Call me Max. Not that I mind
>> either way; you're choice.
>
>Pretty arrogant, telling me what to call you, when you refuse
>to abide by my preferences, bud.
I knew you'd skip past the obvious mention that I am not telling you
what to call me, and want to fixate on the 'call me' imperative. I'd
like to think it wasn't laid as a trap, but in all honesty you've caught
yourself in it so obviously that I fear it might be mere protestations
of innocence. The tortured pretense of affront you had to don in facade
to use the phrase "pretty arrogant" is outrageous. *Obviously* I only
mentioned you could call me Max so that you would know that I had
noticed you were calling me Mr. Devlin, all of a sudden. I meant to use
it to tip you off that I knew the reason why you were calling me Mr.
Devlin, which was to encourage me to mention it so that you could have
an excuse to try to berate me for having the "arrogance" to put your
handle in quotes to identify it as a pseudonym. I had no idea you'd
think it would still be effective, after I'd made it so obvious.
I should think if you were going to use a pseudonym, it shouldn't bother
you that people knew it. I mean, its not like anyone would actually get
confused if I just wrote Courageous rather than 'Courageous'.
The issue is not what you call me, bud, nor what I call you. Its what
you call yourself.
[Back from an aside, I'm requoting the last bit from the previous
exchange. The subject is the definition of 'reasonable', and my
contention is that it is self-evident...]
>>> If you believe that is so then I doubt we can talk about it.
>
>> I believe you just said it.
>
>No.
[Am I the only one who gets why that's funny?]
>> >Precisely right. However, suppose you're passing an accident
>> >scene, and no one else is helping. Stopping and helping is,
>> >in my opinion, charity.
>>
>> Well, see, now we get down to the definitions. If you consider charity
>> to be a luxury, and you consider what you described charity, then you
>> are extraordinarily selfish. I wouldn't call that charity, that's
>> social responsibility.
>
>Where lies the edges of these social responsibilites? So far,
>it seems to me that "out of sight, out of mind," is indeed your
>standard.
An argument from ignorance, I'm afraid, 'C'. The edge of the social
responsibilities varies, depending on circumstance. I don't
second-guess yours, you don't second-guess mine. We both double-check
our own, as well as each others.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 20:43:45 GMT
On 4 Sep 2000 14:58:41 GMT, Maximo Lachman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Roberto Alsina ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) escribio:
>> What should someone do if he could, at the time, afford a child
>> and later can't? Suggestions? Infanticide doesn't count as one.
>
>It does in the minds of certain national socialists (Slobodan) or
>international socialists (Hillary).
I don't believe I've ever heard Hillary advocate infanticide. Perhaps
you can provide a reference. In fact, I don't think I've heard that
claim about Slobodan either, evildoer that he may be.
>Socialists are the 1st to espouse the gov't seizure of kids from
>their parents or guardians without due process. Remember little Elian?
Yes, but as I recall the evil socialist governments involved, both of
them, were trying to get him *returned* to his father, not *taken* from
him. And there seemed to be an awful lot of due process going on there
too. So I guess I don't understand what the hell you're trying to say.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.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: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 16:46:38 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>>
>> On 1 Sep 2000 20:57:44 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 16:27:41 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> >
>> >>Sort of like your criticism, you mean? Again, I ask who I might have
>> >>"defamed"? KDE, by calling it a commercial enterprise?
>> >
>> >Yep.
>>
>> Considering how little trouble they have building their project on a
>> commercial enterprise, this is highly disputable.
>
>If you build a house out of wood, the house is a tree?
If your house is a tree, your house is made out of wood.
--
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: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 17:54:35 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >>
> >> On 1 Sep 2000 20:57:44 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 16:27:41 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Sort of like your criticism, you mean? Again, I ask who I might have
> >> >>"defamed"? KDE, by calling it a commercial enterprise?
> >> >
> >> >Yep.
> >>
> >> Considering how little trouble they have building their project on a
> >> commercial enterprise, this is highly disputable.
> >
> >If you build a house out of wood, the house is a tree?
>
> If your house is a tree, your house is made out of wood.
You seem to have missed the terms of the analogy completely.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 13:52:31 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> >> Well, I wasn't considering Microsoft RPC when I mentioned RPC. Its
that
> >> original RPC that I was referring to. NFS and NIS aren't 'based on it'
> >> so much as use it; they are linked to it in the same way, I suppose, as
> >> RMI is linked to Java.
> >
> >In this case "based on" and "uses" are pretty much interchangable terms.
>
> I figured that from your description of RMI. Its the same relationship,
> actually, with SNMP and SMI. SMI is how you define MIBs, lists of
> management information available. It is incredibly complex to try to
> build MIBs. But the outrageously minimal nature of SNMP, the protocol
> used to transfer the information referenced by the MIB (I've described
> it as 'the most minimal protocol possible') is what its 'based on', and
> exclusively uses.
In fact, I didn't comment on RMI.
> >Even more so when one considered that had NFS and NIS be developed
without
> >the use of RPC their underlying behavior, performance and protocols would
> >have been different.
> >
> >This would be just like saying that KDE is based on Qt.
>
> Yes, I can understand that. I think this would be a reason to
> re-implement network file systems and distributed directory/permissions
> systems, actually. Is *that* why NFS and NIS are so 'blah'?
Yes, both of these rpc services are functional, but could be better
implemented without using RPC and its overhead and other problem. I this
RPC is a good tool for some jobs but not for such critical systems. But
then, at the time that Sun first introduced these protocols were on an RPC
kick..
If anyone wants to see how much of a performance hit that the RPC's overhead
costs NFS. Setup a fileserver that offers a files set via NFS. Setup
marsnwe to provide that same files set on the same fileserver via NCP.
Transfer a few large files to and from the fileserver using both protocols
and compare the transfer speed.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 13:35:23 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2000 09:33:22 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> You and Max seem to be the only people who feel
> "threatened" by the statement.
You know perfectly well that there more.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 17:07:31 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
[...]
>> You have too narrow a perspective on things that allow you
>> to feel comfortable selling future for the sake of a little
>> convenience.
>
>I do what I do based on what I know and believe. You do what you
>do based on what you know and believe. Do so and let me do so.
I don't want to gang up on Roberto with Jedi; that's not what I'm trying
to do. But absent any invective and emotion, there is an issue here.
Roberto wants to deny there is an issue, and that is, in some respects,
the issue.
The idea that KDE is a commercial enterprise is obviously false; even
when I posted it, it was not meant as a clinical perspective, but as an
obvious matter of hyperbole. Roberto would like to sue me for
hyperbole, but the clear truth is, it is the very vehemence of his
reaction to this hyperbole that makes the ethical concerns of KDE again
arise.
This was settled years ago, we're told. Troll Tech opened the source to
QT, and started the KDE Free QT Foundation to ensure it would remain
open. The original questions which arose from TT's commercial approach
were effectively put to rest, in development terms if not in the minds
of everyone, by TT modifying their licensing. They have, indeed,
reserved the right, so to speak (and making no reference to the email
statements we've discussed) to profiteer on their product, but I will
not second-guess them, and it is their product. They have a right to
profit on their work, and so long as they are not inhibiting *general*
competition, the question over whether they are monopolizing in a
putative market is moot. They certainly aren't doing anything, or even
as much, as countless other developers. I don't think we can fault them
for profiting on their work while countless others are still
profiteering on their own and others'.
But again what concerns me is not so much the ethics of TT as the ethics
of the populace, and the general lack of consensus there is on what is
ethical, and whether it is important.
Roberto has been criticized before for having an elitist or prosaic
outlook. That's his take on things, and I don't fault him for it, even
when I point it out. But it does become a problem when considering
ethics, and I'm not trying to insult Roberto so much as just preach a
bit in general about it.
In a recent post to this group, I described ethics like this:
"The edge of the social
responsibilities varies, depending on circumstance. I don't
second-guess yours, you don't second-guess mine. We both double-check
our own, as well as each others."
Consider this a helpful hint, Roberto, should you wonder why jedi seems
to want to intrude so liberally in your business. Just double-checking,
not second guessing. The difference is that when you are double
checking, you don't say "No, there isn't any problem at all, unless you
can show me a problem; there is no problem, no." You say "Is it
possible there could be a problem? Is this a problem? Is that a
problem? Could that lead to a problem?" You see what I'm saying.
--
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
******************************
