Linux-Advocacy Digest #799, Volume #27 Thu, 20 Jul 00 00:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Larry Smith")
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix (Steven Smolinski)
Re: Will SUN be allowed to opensource? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Christopher Browne)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Christopher Browne)
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Gary Hallock)
Re: one step forward, two steps back..
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Richard L. Hamilton)
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix (Perry Pip)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 20 Jul 2000 04:26:56 +1000
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> It wouldn't really surprise me. However, *if* you choose to remain
>> anonymous, *then* you simply can't expect anyone to take you serious
>> when making statements that relate to your person.
>I'm sorry but this is a decision based on more than a few factors. I have
>often wished I could stand up and say, "HEY! You know who I am?!" and let
>loose with my company's name so I could proudly stand with it's/my/our
>achievements and (few) moments in the press. But, I am writing here my own
>personal opinions, not always necessarily those I'd share with every client.
>And it's unfair to my company for any mistakes I may make here to taint it.
Then don't try to relate anything that would need such justification.
You can't have your cake and eat it --- either you put your credentials
up in the open, to be judged and verified by the readers, *or* you choose
not to, but then you have to live with the fact that in c.o.l.a, you don't
have any credentials.
You can still argue based on verifiable facts --- posting links to verifiable
date, for example, or quoting other people who do have verifiable indentities
that qualify them to make the statements they make. You just can't post
anything about your personal experiences and expect anyone to put any
believe in them --- such posts are the equivalent of a "George loves
Susan" scribbled on the inside of the cubicle door in a men's room of
a high school. It may be true, it may not be true, but as there is no
way to check whether the person who wrote it is in any position to
comment on George and Susie's romantic involvement, it is not actually
information in any meaningful sense of the word.
>You would not believe the e-mail he's got and forwarded to me.
As I said before --- I have been posting to cola with my real email address
in the Reply-To: header for a long time, and on occasion in what could
be perceived as rather critical ways, and yet I have not received a single
email, flame or not, as a result.
So if indeed your reports of nasty emails are true --- which, once again,
is a completely unverifiable accusation, and thus pretty meaningless to
start with --- you might want to ask yourself *why* you end up with such
email, and I don't.
>> ARGH! Not another dimwit who says "I don't have a problem, so my software
>> can't be the cause of the problem you see". A person who leaves his high
>> beam on when driving behind another car doesn't have any problem, either,
>> but still causes others problems.
>ok, look, until your deja URL postings I've never seen my posts displayed
>like that. In return quotes I don't recall seeing it that way. I do not know
>why this is happening
Oh, it's called "Outlook Express", another fine Microsoft product with
less than stellar quality control ;-). It happens all over the place,
and I usually don't comment on it, either. I normally just add the missing
quote characters, and then use emacs' "fill-paragraph" command to
get rid of the extra line breaks (which would be why you don't see the
screwed up quotes in my return-quotes at least).
I just had had to do that once too often for your posts (and the silly
idea of using "> " as a quote string rather than ">" didn't make it
any easier, either), and as I was replying, anyway, I thought I might
as well stick it in.
>oh, and when you use the equivlent of aircraft landing lights for "high
>beams" - driving behind someone with them on does cause a problem, usually
>from them swerving off the road, holding their eyes screaming in pain - or
>something like that :)
I sincerely hope you are not using such lights. And living in Australia,
I can assure you that driving in front of such inconsiderate bastards
(which seem singularly common around here for some reason) is doable, though
it is very annoying. The really bad ones are those that won't pass you,
even after you slow down to 20km/h....
Bernie
--
Human blunders, however, usually do more to shape history
than human wickedness
A.J.P. Taylor
British historian, 1906-90
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:16:19 -0400
Saul Goldblatt wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
> > Linux = Yet Another Unix. I think that every one of these Linux cult
> > members should be sentenced to one year of having to perform tech support
> > for end-users of that OS.
>
> There aren't any end users running Linux, at least none that are
> officially supported by the corporate policy. There are however,plenty of
> idiots that take it upon themselves to wipe out the corporate pre-load of
> Windows and "TRY" and use Linux. When they hose up their entire system,
> not to mention flood the network with packets, they call me. I am a
> manager of a technical support help center and unfortunately we have a
> few bad apples that insist upon trying to run Linux on their corporate
> issued PC's.
> It usually ends in disaster.
Why do I doubt this? What company is this?
>
>
> > Then they could explain to the average user why
>
> The average user is ignoring Linux completely.
>
The average Hotmail user may ignore UNIX, but UNIX still
runs Hotmail.
>
> > Linux STILL does not seamlessly support common hardware, such a S3-based
> > graphics. Explain to the end-user how to compile/install a framebuffer
> > SVGA kernel. Expain what a modeline is...Need a parallel port ZIP drive?
> > Say the magic words and type the completely cryptic commands and no
> > problem!! Right?? Red Hat vs. Mandrake vs. SuSE vs. whatever....standing
> > in MicroCenter and seeing the puzzled looks as normal people try to decide
> > WHICH Linux is better. Just bought Code Warrior? Doesn't work with your
> > X-Server because you have an S3 Trio 3D video card and have to use frame
> > buffering? Oh well....explain THAT one. Just purchased Accelerated X and
> > it also does not function, even though there is not a HINT on the box of
> > unsupported hardware? Oh well....
>
> Linux is a complete waste of time for average users who need to function in a mostly
>Windows world. There is simply too many compromises that need to be made when
>attempting to use Linux.
>
A Windows world, yes, a contented place where people don't have to think about
operating systems, where people don't have to think about software, where people
don't have to think at all because Microsoft will give them a shiny GUI and hide
all the icky details.
>
> > Linux will NEVER succeed in the common marketplace until it can LOSE THE
> > HARDWARE COMPATIBILITY LIST!! PEOPLE DON'T CARE ABOUT HCLs!!! THEY JUST
> > WANT IT TO WORK!! MICROSOFT WORKS!! GET IT YET????
>
> No, they don't get it and never will. They are too busy fighting editor
> wars and playing with their compilers.
>
As opposed to watching dancing paper clips?
>
> > Unix has been around for 30 years and has not "revolutionized" the computer
> > world. It never will because the Unix world is run by cultists rather than
> > business people.
>
> It's run by anti-social, pencil necked geeks who need to get laid more
> often, even if they have to pay for it and chances are good they do.
At least they are competent anti-social geeks.
>
>
> Tip: Make sure and pick a fresh one!!!
>
> Students are another source of Linux supporters. Green, starry eyed
> nymphs who have not a touch of reality having been shielded from the
> reall world for four or five years. They end up being clones of their
> professors, who wouldn't be professors if they actually had any talent.
>
And what sort of talent do you have? Besides moronic trolling.
>
> I see a couple every week here trying to get a job. They are textbook
> idiots with absolutely no grasp on reality.
>
> > What a JOKE!!
>
> The joke is on Linux.
>
> Linux = Loser = Waste of time = no interest = sewerage = garbage.
>
> Linux is the collective septic system of all of the open sores waste that
> is given away (lord knows they could never sell such junk).
>
Then how did proprietary Unices sell stuff? And could Microsoft
sell Windows were it not preloaded?
>
> We just sent out a memo today forbidding any alternative operating
> systems on the corporate personal computers including lap tops.
>
Tell me what firm it is, so I can avoid dealing with it.
>
> The only thing Linux has going for it is that it is cheap. I can relate
> to that. After all, "Why pay retail, when you can get it wholesale"?
>
Does Microsoft pay you, or do just post such nonsense for fun?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Larry Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:20:07 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Larry Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ><snip>
> >
> >> There is no discussion of anything else, and I think you have heard too
> >> many scare-stories. Government bureaucracy is never attractive to a
> >> reasonable person. But so long as it remains bureaucracy and does not
> >> progress to tyranny, a result unlikely given our system of checks and
> >> balances (where the court can over-rule attempts by Congress to inhibit
> >> liberty, and the Congress can write new laws to save the citizens from
> >> unfortunate applications of jurisprudence), it is unreasonable to
oppose
> >> it prima facia.
> >
> >Yes, this worked quite well at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Not some local
sheriff
> >but the feds and, in the case of Waco, the US Attorney General. All still
> >have their jobs.[...]
>
> Any citizen who is enough of an idiot to hole themselves up with weapons
> when the govament boys start lining up with rifles outside your door,
> well, let's just say that's a self-correcting phenomenon.
Interesting spin. There are more than enough idot citizens to go around.
However, the "government boys" are purportedly trained and are being paid to
be professionals while gun toting amateur rednecks are a dime a dozen. Let's
just say that the self correcting phenomenon you mentioned could as easily
be applied to the idot citizens who inhabit the nations highways but this is
America, isn't it?
> You come out with your hands up and state your piece in a court of law,
> unless your pretty damn sure whatever you're doing is worth dying for.
> The freedom to hole yourself up with weapons and not surrender to
> federal officers when they have a warrant for you is not worth dying
> for. And its damn sure not worth putting your children in danger for,
> by holing them up with you. I appreciate that there is a whole lot of
> country which may be considered 'none of your business' when you want to
> establish yourself an armed compound. But you better damn sure be a
> peace-loving armed compound, and they don't "take a stand" and get
> involved with hostage negotiators just to make a point.
Not even a nice try. There is no excuse for what happened.
> Waco and Ruby Ridge were both terrible, terrible tragedies. There may
> certainly have been more than evident need to review the situation in
> its full gravity. But I never said you can't judge; I said you can't
> judge prima facia.
> If the feds ever come knocking at my door wearing bullet proof vests,
> I'm gonna be right kind to them, and do what they tell me until I can
> get a lawyer and stand before a judge. If the people at Waco or even
> Ruby Ridge would have done that, they wouldn't be dead. I can
> appreciate that the "independent 'Merican" myth still might cause some
> to feel the need to hole themselves up with an arsenal. I even oppose
> gun control, and I still don't think that's a rational response to
> social or civil situations.
>
Neither is the use of elite Federal swat teams against citizens.
> But what am I gonna do? Convince paranoid people that nobody's out to
> get them? Not likely, I guess.
Trained professions negotiate with such people especially when children are
involved. There wasn't any rush to get anything done within a fixed time
frame except in the warped mission critical minds of the team commanders.
They and Reno should've been help accountable for these actions with, at the
very least, public acknowledgement of what was done and by who and the loss
of their jobs.
====== 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] (Steven Smolinski)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 03:23:38 GMT
Saul Goldblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> And "flooding the entire network with packets" requires the user to go out
>> of his/her/its way to screw up.
>No it doesn't. All it requires is for them to install Linux with default
>values.
Bald-faced lie. First of all, not all installs are alike, so this suffers
from hasty generalization, or just plain ignorance. Secondly, being a bit
on the far side of fastidious myself, I log (and watch with gkrellm) every
packet that my machine exchanges. My linux box doesn't so much as peep
through that eth interface unless I tell it to. And I didn't do anything
ridiculously out of the ordindary when setting it up.
At least try to keep the advocacy to facts; advocating with falsehoods
just weakens the position you were trying to advance.
Steve
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Will SUN be allowed to opensource?
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:22:07 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Assuming file formats is the key to the kingdom, and assuming that
> StarOffice has as one of its features a translation to and from MS file
> formats, and assuming they didn't figure out how to do this through
> reverse-engineering, why would Microsoft allow the open and free
> publishing of code that would explain how to translate their Word and
> Excel files?
Is it something that needs Microsoft's permission?
> Wouldn't that ruin them?
>
We can only hope.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 03:24:19 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Phillip Lord would say:
>>>>>> "Rich" == Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rich> On 19 Jul 2000, Phillip Lord wrote:
>
> >> I think that its unlikely that a standard scripting language will
> >> ever happen. Look at how many people still use sh.
>
> Rich> Err, that's because sh *is* the standard UNIX scripting
> Rich> language!
>
> Sorry that came out backwards.
>
> The original post was about potential improvements to
>unix in the future. The suggestion was to have python (or similar) as
>the scripting language. It would be nice to replace sh scripts with
>some better language. But this has never happened. There are many
>better scripting languages around, but the none of the has replaced
>sh, rather there are just lots of them around. Python appears to be
>a nice one from what I know of it, but it will never become a
>standard. Even sh which is no longer a standard, as it exists in many
>different forms, with slight incompatibilities.
The problem is that despite the fact that almost all the new scripting
languages (save for csh) are "better" than sh, they're not
compellingly better than _each other_. And the differences elicit
religious wars :-).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/scripting.html>
Rules of the Evil Overlord #2. "My ventilation ducts will be too
small to crawl through. <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 03:24:20 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when [EMAIL PROTECTED] would say:
>Shoot the fucking paperclip and have a nude Fran
>Drescher instead. As long as it doesn't talk :)
I don't think "not talking" is one of the valid options. Regardless,
it would get real old real fast...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
Rules of the Evil Overlord #2. "My ventilation ducts will be too
small to crawl through. <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Reply-To: the wobbler
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 03:24:48 GMT
I know of one very big company that recently sent
out such a memo.
It has 3 letters in it's name :)
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:16:19 -0400, "Colin R. Day"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Why do I doubt this? What company is this?
>
>>
>>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:24:20 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> And it is useful to understand the nature of something if you wish to
> design it effectively, so that it can be efficiently implemented, and
> expediently employed.
>
That's the first intelligent thing you have said. Now if you would only
practice what you preach.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: one step forward, two steps back..
Date: 19 Jul 2000 23:26:23 -0400
On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 17:39:54 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>--
> You have c+---------------------------------------+ail.
>For these chang|# Microsoft GenerateError . O X |computer!
> Do yo+---------------------------------------+
> | Your signature has performed |
| an illegal operation and will be |
| shut down. |
| |
| [ Close ] [ More Details >> ] |
+---------------------------------------+
--
Microsoft Windows. Never had it, never will.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Reply-To: the wobbler
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 03:28:22 GMT
BTW you can call them and ask them if they support
Lotus Notes running under Wine....
Get ready for some laughter at the other end of
the line......
The number is:
1-800-426-7378
wobbles
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 03:24:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>I know of one very big company that recently sent
>out such a memo.
>
>It has 3 letters in it's name :)
>
>
>
>
>
>On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:16:19 -0400, "Colin R. Day"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Why do I doubt this? What company is this?
>>
>>>
>>>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:29:54 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>I think the issue lies in this right here. Copyright infringement
>>involves copying the *intellectual property*.
>
>Could you clarify what you mean by "the intellectual property"? Most
>people use it as a collective term for copyright, trademark, patent,
>and trade secrets, rather than something that a work may possess.
Good point. Thanks for picking up on it. If I could clarify it,
though, I don't think we'd need copyright and patent. Is trade secret
and trademark also considered intellectual property?
I am using the term in a way which seems both literal and figurative, I
think. A literal reading of the words, not as an idiom, but as a basic
language construct. There is real property, and there is intellectual
property. I guess what I mean by "intellectual property" is whatever is
*owned*. In this case, the right to copy a work of authorship fixed in
a tangible medium of expression. (Did I get that right?)
>> Now, with "normal" IP,
>>the situation might be misleading, since books and music don't have any
>>functional operation.
>
>Copyright infringement involves copying or otherwise improperly using
>the expression of a copyrighted work, to the extent that that expression
>is protectable by copyright. The methods used by a computer program
>are not protected by copyright (but might be by patent), just their
>expression. This is codified in 17 USC 102(b). House Report 97-1476,
>which accompanied the passage of the Copyright Act of 1976, makes this
>clear --
> Some concern has been expressed lest copyright in computer programs
> should extend protection to the methodology or processes adopted by
> the programmer, rather than merely to the "writing" expressing his
> ideas. Section 102(b) is intended, among other things, to make clear
> that the expression adopted by the programmer is the copyrightable
> element in a computer program, and that the actual processes or
> methods embodied in the program are not within the scope of the
> copyright law.
>
>So it's not that books are different because they don't have something
>functional, it's that the functional part of a computer program, as
>opposed to the expression that causes that function, isn't protected
>by copyright. And if there is only a single way to express a function,
>then that expression isn't protected by copyright.
Thank you for the review. Software, however, is a functional work of
engineering. It doesn't actually have functional "parts", does it? It
is treated as text, and copyrighted as such. But with text, you don't
copyright it and then hide it. You publish the text itself, or show the
movie or sell records of the music, and others can view, enjoy, and
otherwise "use" your product without any subsequent limitations placed
on them by you. (Copyright law, of course, still binds them.) They can
learn from and re-use everything about the work, so long as they don't
copy the "intellectual property". In some ways, they can use any "part"
verbatim, as in adopting the style or re-using cliches in homage; these,
I imagine, might be the conceptual equivalent of "fair use" as commonly
referenced today, the quoting of a parts, but not the whole. In other
ways, however, you can replicate the work in whole, only so long as you
don't reproduce any parts. The number of cookie-cutter pot-boilers and
such which use this device to make words that can't be copied without
permission extensively.
So I guess what I'm looking for an explanation of, is how an engineering
effort can be copyrighted? It can't, as you point out. Yet the
results, the software code, are supposedly copyrighted as a literary
work. And yet they are then subsequently never *treated* as a literary
work. And yet somehow the fact that linking a program to a library can
make the program a derivative work of the library is supposed to be very
difficult or impossible to understand by reason?
I think not. And RMS and his lawyers seem to agree. Of *course*
linking a library makes a program derivative of the library. The
copyright doesn't protect chapters in a book; it protects the whole
book. What do I care what order they were written in?
If software is copyrightable as a literal work, and object code is
considered identical for legal purposes as source, then what are the
laws about compilations which I must obey in order to create the work of
authorship known as "my PC"?
>> The user can obtain a copy of the source code,
>>the "covered work". But he does not obtain the *intellectual property*,
>>since he has no ownership of that work.
>
>What he has is ownership of a copy of the source code. What he doesn't
>have is ownership of the copyright of the source code. "Ownership of a
>copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is
>distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is
>embodied." 17 USC 202.
Thank you.
>The discussion just gets muddied when you introduce terms like "covered
>work" and "intellectual property", rather than the terms used in the
>law you are discussing.
The discussion was muddled before I ever got here. You seem to be very
on-target in representing the legal language part of the picture, so I
think some of the purpose of my descriptions is satisfied. The
conceptual part doesn't match up with the legal terms, for reasons that
should be obvious. My interest in discussions like this are to try to
determine if the law, as well as the legal language, supports a
conceptual understanding of the issue, because I'm not any more
satisfied with the idea of the law as a big logic puzzle of arbitrary
configuration than anyone else is, or should be.
So far, what you've posted seems to show that the basic legal
considerations are adequately dealt with in my musings. Software and
copyright certainly are not simple issues, and they are important ones,
and deserve understanding, not memorization. Here we have an issue
where the developers of a work are authors, not engineers, but the work
is never used for its literary, only its functional, value. Obviously,
some new concepts need to be dealt with by lawyers and engineers alike.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== 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] (Richard L. Hamilton)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: 20 Jul 2000 03:53:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2000, KLH wrote:
>
>> This is one of the times that I think they are doing it precisely for the
>> publicity. Notice the qualifiers, hence: "Sun is *considering* GPLing
>> StarOffice" not that they are actually doing it. I think it is part of some
>
> I'm half-inclined to agree - although personally, I favour the BSD license
> over the GPL.
>
>> half-baked though probably successful strategy to increase mindshare for
>> StarOffice. Just wait and see: they will not go through with it. Sun is one
>> of the most propietary companies there are. And Sun knows all about
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Bullshit. Non-open source != proprietory, something Open Source advocates
> should remember. For example, NFS, invented by Sun, is an open technology:
> the specification is available for all to read, and you are free to write
> your own implementation. Indeed, UNIX is an open technology.
>
> Compare this with M$'s approach, where almost nothing is documented, and one
> is forced to reverse engineer file formats and some APIs: now *that's*
> proprietory.
>
> Open systems were around long before Linux and other "Open Source" advocates
> even invented the phrase.
Indeed. While Open Source is great, and there's certainly a large
(and perhaps growing) place for it, I've always thought that open
specifications and interfaces that did not require any patented
algorithms were far more important. Plenty of people can re-implement
something; sooner or later one of them will think that's stupid and
give it away.
Where I'd welcome source access (even if under more restrictive
terms than the Open Source folks would like) is for troubleshooting,
debugging, and communicating intelligently with tech support
(or doing my own interim tech support). I personally don't really
want to get into having to distribute it or play a life cycle role
in it once I've handed my contribution to the maintainer, be they
a bunch of volunteers or a company.
--
ftp> get |fortune
377 I/O error: smart remark generator failed
Bogonics: the primary language inside the Beltway
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.smart.net/~rlhamil
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Date: 20 Jul 2000 03:32:28 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Replying to your own message again. Get life steve/teknite/simon.
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 00:24:48 GMT,
Saul Goldblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
